I refuse to be "Nellie Olson"....
Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever).
form_srcid: Ftk
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.97
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Ftk
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Ftk%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2007/04/02 11:58:35, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dave, The reason I haven't put your comments through is because I've been watching you ridicule me here and at RSR while at the same time trying to act as though you are interested in carrying on a sincere conversation with me on my blog. I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere. There is no point in it. I had been putting every single one of your comments through, although your first attempt at conversation with me was to refer to me as "Eff" the kids. I looked past it and thought perhaps you really were interested in understanding the general public and how they feel about these issues. But, since then I've found that you are not sincere. I have your comments waiting on hold and have not deleted them. If I ever feel that you are making an attempt at sincerity again, I'll put them through. I very much enjoyed our conversations when you displayed some semblance of respect for me. Any of you who take the time to go through my blog archives will see that I regularly carry on lengthy conversations with those who treat me with respect. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 12:59:10, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
That's incorrect. You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold. Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one. Your second post came when I signed up here. Apparently, for some strange reason, you felt that would be a good time to come in here and join in the juvenile attacks on people whose views differ from their own. I'd imagine it was an ego thing. You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you. That way you could receive your accolades in person. BTW, it's interesting that you bring up DaveScot and act as if I would allow him to ridicule others merely because he supports ID. I believe you probably recall that I don't allow ridicule regardless of who it's coming from. BTW, I signed up here for occasions such as this. If I feel I am being unjustly accused of something by various posters in this forum, I may choose to comment on it. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 13:10:16, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Stephen, I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either. Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again. You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting. I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 13:19:52, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Thanks for the welcome, Richard. My contributions to this forum will be sparse. I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 13:43:33, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Alan, Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you. Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 14:15:40, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dave wrote: “My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments.” This is the first sentence in your second post here: “Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet!” I noticed another post soon after that one, so at that point I started holding your comments on my blog. you wrote: “When my comments were going through on your blog, I didn't post here. When they stopped going through, this seemed like an appropriate place to comment.” Your comment I highlighted above came *before* I started holding your comments on my blog. Of course no one here will take my word for it, but in your first post you did not mention that I had banned you, neither did you state that I wasn’t responding to you. I actually enjoyed our conversations and I had thought you were sincere. I was mistaken. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 14:20:52, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Richard, You might notice that DaveScot got the point. I haven't seen anything inappropriate since that post. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 14:59:01, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen. But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following: pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc. Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed. In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all. The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others... |
| Date: 2007/04/02 15:43:30, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dave wrote: “What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?” It was very clear that you were trying to get around the topic at hand. I merely decided to stick to the original conversation and emphasize why I am not putting your comments through moderation at my blog. you wrote: “Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)? Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.” It really makes no difference who you were addressing. It’s irrelevant. You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others. It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue. “You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that? “ It’s not “sneaky” at all. Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule. It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were, you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 15:55:53, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Richard, It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard. I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended: “Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.” And, here. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 16:16:05, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. " Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 18:03:49, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dave wrote: "that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. " Yes Dave, you caught me in an error. Obviously, I should not have used the word hypothesis in that particular example, though it would be useless to try to convince you that I do know what the word means. It's one of the first things you learn in high school biology class, so I'd guess that most people are able to use that particular word appropriately. You and I both know that I wrote three lengthy posts that evening in response to some of your comments. You also know (because I mentioned it) that I fell asleep with my laptop still in my lap that night because I was up too late putting together responses to your posts like I promised I would. Some of you seem to have an excessive amount of time to spend in these Internet blogs and forums whereas I have a life outside of cyberspace and have to squeeze in time when I can. I was tired and made an error - simple as that. I also remember that you used the word "prove" when talking about scientific evidence one time, and you know that the word "prove" in not appropriate in that type of discussion. So, we all make mistakes occasionally. Granted, I would hope that I don't know as much about science as you do seeing as you are a biology professor. But, nonetheless, I think I have the right to discuss these issues and also consider the position of your opponents as well. Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it. I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 18:18:49, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles. Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me. I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject. Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content. But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 18:36:45, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Stevestory wrote: "FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us." 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've been reading threads here for some time now due to my sitemeter picking up on your regulars who apparently found it thrilling to post rude comments on my blog. Before that time, I didn't even know this place existed. Obviously, there is nothing of value coming from this site. 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're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 18:49:50, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Lenny, I really have no idea how posting that supports your case. You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory. Clearly he's talking about history. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 18:59:53, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Stevestory wrote: "FtK--so you don't want to discuss science, just insult us, and your insult is that we don't want to discuss science, just insult you. Wow." Is what I'm writing insulting to you? I was merely stating facts. But, if you do consider them insults, wouldn't I fit right in with the rest of you. That's what you do, correct? And, many of you have said that your demeanor is appropriate, so why the big "Wow" at the end of your sentence? |
| Date: 2007/04/02 19:03:38, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Not a problem, Lenny. Consider it done. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 19:16:37, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Stevestory wrote: “So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?” Goal? Need there be a goal when entering this forum? It seems to me that the conversations here are merely sporadic posts on nothing of particular interest. I entered the forum to counter Dave’s assumptions as to why his comments were not showing up on my blog. He apparently thought it was due to an enlightening revelation which led me to the “conclusion that [I] really do[n't] know squat about science“. So, there you have it. I provided Dave with the real reason why his posts aren’t making it past moderation, and at that point was flooded with further comments from the gang. So, I’ll take my leave now and go enjoy a nice evening with my family. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 23:01:13, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Wesley, you might work harder on your reading comprehension. I'll repeat what I said: "I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either." I was banned from KCFS and I assume I was banned at PT because I was not able to post for months, and when I emailed admin., I received no response as to why I could not post. I have just recently been able to get comments through again. I *never* claimed that PZ "banned" me. I said he "doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through". He has, on occasion, made my posts unreadable. So they make it past moderation, but they have been messed with so that the words look like gibberish. |
| Date: 2007/04/03 13:54:03, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
ROTFL... I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside. In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types. Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly. My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini. Have a nice day boys... |
| Date: 2007/04/04 17:03:46, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Hmmm...no wonder there are so many engineers who support ID. |
| Date: 2007/04/04 20:47:51, Link 172.164.159.64 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"I view FTK (and all the other IDers) as entertainment value. Nothing more." Jeez, Lenny, I was just thinking the same thing about this blog. I've been highly entertained the last couple days watching you guys act like complete goofballs. Some of you are just weird, but a few of you are actually pretty funny. But, Dave's right. I really should be getting back to my own blog and work on my review of the Humes lecture. |
| Date: 2007/04/04 20:53:45, Link 172.164.159.64 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Wouldn't discussions about actual science be kind of out of place in this forum? I don't see much serious stuff being discussed around here. But, I can stick around and shoot the shit with ya for a while. How old are you Richard? Just curious. |
| Date: 2007/04/04 21:23:07, Link 172.164.159.64 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Darlin', the last time I started asking questions in a science forum, I became addicted to that forum for 2 1/2 years. My husband actually suggested that I change my screen name from FtK to OCD. |
| Date: 2007/04/04 21:36:08, Link 172.164.159.64 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Hey, Lenny, guess what? They won't ban me here...so I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to. Pretty cool, huh? Gosh, this could actually be fun. I gotta ask you though...do you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief? |
| Date: 2007/04/04 21:41:04, Link 172.164.159.64 | ||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||
LOL, and how are you doing with that self-accountability thing, Richard? |
| Date: 2007/04/04 21:57:09, Link 172.164.159.64 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"Pretty much just don't straight-up insult people." I don't "straight-up" insult people. It's just not in me. But, I'm really not into chatting about science with ya. I've been doing that gig for years in other pro-evolution forums, and I think I've heard just about every argument for and against ID and evolution numerous times now. I find it much more interesting trying to figure out what makes you people tick. You're such a snarly bunch of folks. |
| Date: 2007/04/04 22:42:04, Link 172.164.159.64 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"Wow. Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?" Not a problem, blipey. Here are your last 8 of 10: I can’t discuss science with you because... 8. Apparently there are a lot of homos around here, and everyone knows that conservative Christians have homophobia. 7. I fear further wrath from PZ due to my comment that “biology isn’t rocket science”. God knows the man actually believes that biologists are at the top of the professional food chain. 6. Atheists scare the bejesus out of me. 5. J-Dog keeps referring to me as someone with an “expansive backside”. 4. Dave has already offered everything he’s got in defense of common descent, and I still think it’s a crock. 3. I’m afraid k.e. will expect me to “lickalottapussie”. 2. I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys). 1. I’m scared to death that Lenny will end up wanting to sleep with me. That would be a fate worse than death. |
| Date: 2007/04/06 13:35:28, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
| ROTFLMAO...I knew you'd like that one, Richard. |
| Date: 2007/04/06 13:44:24, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
[blushes] [whispering to Kristine] What's your going rate for a few quick shimmie lessons? [/whispering to Kristine] |
| Date: 2007/04/06 14:02:25, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
OMG, you're right...the atheist mentality is oozing into my subconcious. It's Richard's fault for luring me in here with his overwhelming sexual prowess. I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before. |
| Date: 2007/04/06 14:12:39, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"If you're beliefs are true, then examining them and other viewpoints should only ultimately make you more sure. The fact that theism discourages inspection should be a big red flag." I've spent years examining the evidence for various religious beliefs. If there is a religion that discourages inspection of their beliefs, then no doubt they are based on faith alone. I do not base my beliefs in God on faith alone. You're right about one thing. Examining other viewpoints has ultimately made me more sure about my own. PS: Yes, several - various colors...do you have a favorite? |
| Date: 2007/04/06 20:19:54, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I think it sucks... Filter that. |
| Date: 2007/04/07 10:04:14, Link 172.131.23.11 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Good grief...would you people mellow out. I was just playing around. Truth be told I've only glanced at the paper. I've been too busy flirting with Richard. For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so. I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill. There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth). That's fine, but I'm certainly not going to come in here and feed your intense and somewhat twisted desire to bash creationists. I'll read the paper within the next few days because I find this stuff fascinating, but I'll do it when I have time. I used to immediately read and respond to so much crap thrown at me in another forum that my family darn near disowned me due to my obsession with this topic. There were usually 10-20 people on average responding to me and I felt compelled to answer every single comment. Dave can attest to the fact that I like to have the last word on any given subject. Psycho, I know, but it's just who I am. I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in -- I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den. Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again. [ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy. I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy. We gals gotta stick together. Girl power and all that. If you be nice to me, I‘ll put in a good word for you next time I talk to Dembski.] [pss..Louis, just fyi, I am definitely attracted to the swarthy demi-Greek description, but at the moment Richard has my heart. Though it does sound as if you are the true scientist and he is not, so there is hope for you yet because, truth be told, the real reason I hang out in these forums is that little nerdy science types turn me on. (Don‘t tell anybody).] |
| Date: 2007/04/07 12:39:56, Link 172.131.23.11 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"Christian believers who have not met a lot of people from other cultures/traditions tend to think that other religions are just different flavors of Christianity and that drives me nuts." Kristine, do any of you realize how atheists in these pro-Darwin forums seem to adhere to a strict steroetype of what they believe an IDist to be (ie. a Christian "fundie" who has no experience outside of the sancuary of their own church). I joke around about atheists, but I know plenty and some are very good friends, but they don't treat me the way I'm treated by atheists I find in these forums. And, none of my Christian friends have any desire to establish a theocracy or destroy the wall of separation. All this nonsense I see flying around in cyberspace is more hysteria than reality. Sure, there are those Christians who are loud and nasty, just as there are atheists who are loud and nasty, but I certainly don't believe that the majority of us (Christians or atheists) agree with everything they say. "So don't talk to me about "truth" because I could pick any number of faith traditions if I was inclined to, and it wouldn't resemble yours, Dembski's, or Egnor's. From what I've seen I have a lot of choices."" How do you know what my faith tradition looks like? Seriously. Christians came at these issues from different angles, so I'm not sure you have me completely figured out by exchanging a few posts with me. When I wrote the word "truth", I'm was talking about the whole scope of this debate - not merely religious truth. Oh, btw, I've only emailed Dembski twice, and I'm not sure the man is particularly fond of me. But, he hasn't kicked me out of the big tent just yet. |
| Date: 2007/04/07 12:50:44, Link 172.131.23.11 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Richard stop! You are seriously turning me on, and I just don't have time to play today. Quit luring me back in here wondering what you're going to say next. I need to try to figure out how in the heck to cook a humongous ham for an Easter shindig at my house tomorrow. I'm guessing you just stick the sucker in the oven for 2 or 3 hours, but I'm a absolutely horrendous cook who rarely opens the oven door, so I've got to try to find a recipe book around here somewhere... |
| Date: 2007/04/07 19:40:32, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Only have a sec... Dave, thanks for providing that link so that I don't have to keep repeating myself over and over, but this... "(she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist)." ... is absolutely and positively false. I do not believe this in any way, shape or form. In fact, this is so not me that I am suppressing the urge to scream. First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO. And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”. Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist. I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does. For instance, Jeremy (a regular at my blog) is a theistic evolutionist and buys into common descent and the whole nine yards. He believes in God, and is certainly not an atheist. The dude is a Christian, and after several private conversations with him, I've no doubt about his dedication to his belief in God. We disagree about science, not the ultimate *reason* why we are Christians - though we do have different ideas regarding the term "faith". I don't have a problem with "evolution". I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory. I have a problem accepting macroev. and common descent as "facts". Btw, I've read talkorgins 29+ evidences for macroev. several times in the past, and I don't see the "facts" for the inference. I see "facts" for microev. and inferences and just-so stories for macroev. that *may* be correct, but are certainly just as questionable as inferring design in nature. Though, in my mind, the two are quite different issues. I don't believe that ID is a threat to the mechanisms of evolution except in questioning how far they can be applied. Here is another link where Dave and I discuss macroev. It's a mess because there are other discussions going on as well. But, if you’re actually interested, it might save me some time explaining myself again. And, ~please~ don't just sift through it looking for things to pull out and declare that I simply "don't understand science". I've *never* claimed to be a scientist, but I do think that I have the right to try to understand these issues and discuss them without people writing me off as a complete idiot from the get go or getting seriously ticked off when I honestly don't agree with them. Stephen wrote: “It is pretty much impossible to discuss science here and remain a fundamentalist (by which I mean interpreting Genesis literally), unless you become completely disshonest. BTW, I doubt that you have ever really discussed science on other forums in any honest way. You may think that you have, but you have not.” Statements like that are what have made me completely lose interest in talking with folks in these forums. You demand that if we don’t accept your logic and “scientific facts”, then we are simply being dishonest. I have never been dishonest about my position in this debate. I’m interested in both the science and the religious implications of the topics discussed. But, I don’t think one needs to resort to discussions of the supernatural to consider various interpretations of the scientific evidence that support the inferences being made. |
| Date: 2007/04/07 21:37:34, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
I completely understand that, and totally agree. I did not state that a "scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science". Those are your words, not mine. Some inferences are supported with enough empirical evidence to be considered at *almost* the same level as fact. But, there are many, many inferences made in scientific research, and I don't think they are all equally supported by the empirical evidence being applied to them. |
| Date: 2007/04/07 22:57:42, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
{getting tingly all over} Do I need to keep the heels on? I'm pushing 6'2" in these suckers and they're killing my feet... |
| Date: 2007/04/08 14:20:40, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I refuse to be "Nellie Olson".... Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever). |
| Date: 2007/04/08 22:38:14, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Sheesh...you people are going to drive me insane quickly. Yeah, I think Brown's stuff is interesting...so what. If you really want to dig into some reading, I can refer you to a 3 month debate that occured in the same forum. I led the thread, with Brown commenting on occassion. Of course, it would have been much more fun if people had played along with my initial plan on how to set the entire thing up, but they were all serious party poopers. No matter...I found it quite interesting anyway. |
| Date: 2007/04/08 22:42:26, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
| "Tom", I noticed that you are a new member. You wouldn't happen to be an old friend of mine from KCFS who is posting under a new and improved name, would you?? |
| Date: 2007/04/09 09:16:20, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon? I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we conservative protestant women are a much more satisfied group overall... From the article: “The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.'' As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean). Read it and weep, boys... Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?  |
| Date: 2007/04/09 12:15:50, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Kristine, Just shear curiosity... From what I've read, you've never really taken the whole god thing seriously - even as a youth. When did you stop attending church/sunday school? I find it kind of hard to believe that you never came across other Christians who were searching for answers to those more difficult questions. What type of church did you attend? Did you switch churches when you weren't provided answers, or did you ever consider the possible evidence for other belief systems? What evidence led you to believe that there is no "god" (or whatever) that is ultimately responsible for our existence? And, for craps sake, don't think I'm asking you these questions to try to "convert" you or some craziness like that. I have no desire whatsoever. I'm just curious about people who make some of the statements that you have made. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 12:20:31, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
You also wrote: "I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!” Are you for real? I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots. I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 12:30:46, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people? Seriously? You know all the arguments. I know all the arguments. Different interpretations....that's all. You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are. btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about? |
| Date: 2007/04/09 12:51:48, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
| LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 13:15:12, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues. I'm hopeless. I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature. I don't care what the "scientific consensus" is. It's simply not logically sound, IMHO. I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other. You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 13:23:04, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"Have you got any scientific topic you ARE willing to discuss here." Not really, but I would like an answer to the question I've had for years. I don't understand why scientists insist that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for everything we observe on planet earth. How can that ever be considered anything other than speculation? Why can't other options be considered? When I think about that first living organism, it seems like shear insanity to consider that it started evolving on it's own and from that starting point everything we observe came to be. We've never observed anything remotely close to supporting this notion, but yet it's considered rock solid fact. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic logic. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 13:31:09, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. " Sigh...well, that's sweet of you to say, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long before you would change your tune. F'instance, Dave said something simliar at one point but when he couldn't convince me of macroev., he simply concluded that I'm being disrepectful of his knowledge and have nothing other than a religious agenda. He questioned my honestly and thinks I have no interest in the scientific issues, but am merely interested in shoving my religion down students throats. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 13:52:20, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Richard, As much as I am attracted to you, I must be honest with you and tell you that you simply don't listen (at all). I *HAVE* been studing these issues *endlessly* for years now. It must on some level occur to you that you are never ever going to consider anything other than what coinsides with your worldview, so what is the point of further dialogue? You're not interested in actually considering that neither of us might have the perfect explanations. Nor are any of you willing to come to some sort of understanding or middle ground on how to solve the conflicts in this debate. I've been reading the threads in this forum for a while now (ever since Richard started screwing with me over on my blog), and it's pretty apparent that you guys are here for only one reason. And, sincere dialogue is certainly NOT the reason. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 14:09:16, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"There is no positive evidence for ID/Creationism. If there is, please point me to it. ID has zero predictive and explanatory power. It is ignorance seeded by dogma." There is no positive evidence for common descent either. Inference...key word here. Inferences for both ID and common descent. The predictive power of evolution is overstated. It's more a mind set than anything else. If the notion of common descent had never been considered, science would have rolled along at exactly the same speed as it has. It's irrelevant. "it would seem the problem is not with NDE but your ability to conceptualize." LOL, conceptualize? That's what this comes down to? You can imagine that first little blobby cell popping out of nowhere and starting the process of evolution on it's own and I cannot. Fine, you're great at day dreaming, but I consider those stories just that. Interested dreams. "And I'm not going to give you a playfull spanking now."  My day just won't be complete without that playful slap on the ass. I'm going to go have a good cry...unless you might consider changing your mind? |
| Date: 2007/04/09 17:02:02, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||||||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||||||
Okay, Kristine, I find you quite interesting...you may not want to continue this conversation because I’m not sure my comments can all be classified as “science”, but nonetheless, I’ll throw it out there anyway and maybe you‘ll take a stab at it.
Hmmm...I grew up Lutheran as well. I’ve since dropped the dogma of “religion” and attend a non-denominational church which is a more authentic, down to earth, fact driven environment. Nothing against Lutherans, but I wanted an environment where I was learning more about why we believe, not what we believe (plus the organ music and hymns from 1850 were torture to sit through).
This type of statement has always been of extreme interest to me. From what I have gathered, atheists are quite driven by the belief that we must use our reason and intellect when considering the many facets of this debate, and education is what they believe to be the key that allows one to dismiss the “myth” of the supernatural. Yet, they have no evidence that God doesn’t exist. It seems to me that the only option for someone who doesn’t believe that there is evidence for or against the supernatural would be to adhere to agnosticism. So, what is it that takes a person that step further and claim that their belief is that there is no god? I’ve never quite been able to figure that one out. And, for me, it seems like an interest in science automatically leads to the question of the origin of life. But, I suppose I’m just an odd duck. The bottom line for me is that I ~can’t~ conceive of the universe evolving from nothing whatsoever. That is an extremely irrational, illogical conclusion, IMHO. So, that leads to the next obvious question..is there any evidence at all that supports the notion of a supernatural or natural designer, and can we learn anything about that source of our existence from science, history, archeology, or other areas of study. So, that’s were I’ve been for the past 6+ years - addicted to finding the answers to these questions.
While that may be true, I have no interest in attempting to convert a hard core atheist. I’ve never converted anyone in my life, and I am *certainly* not going to attempt it here.
Could be. I’m certainly not going to doubt that. I’ve met some pretty biblically illiterate Christians in my day. But, I will say that there are many biblical scholars and everyday Christians who could probably carry on a very intellectual conversation with you. Does the fact that so many Christians don’t know what’s in their bible make Christianity wrong? Nope. Does the fact that many atheists don’t know squat about science and consider Dawkins et.al. as their source that proves the non-existence of the supernatural make atheism the wrong conclusion? Not necessarily. Regarding your science teacher:
I have no problem with what your science teacher told you. In fact, I agree with him.
I certainly agree with that, but I think it’s different for different people. Some have no problem believing in a God or Buddha or whatever on blind faith. For me, that seems insane. That is why I have a hard time understanding the mindset of some theistic evolutionists that I’ve talked with. They state that they are Christian, but it seems to me that they base their beliefs on faith alone because they do not seem interested in considering the evidence for their beliefs.
Yeah, I’m pretty familiar with Miller’s arguments, and it doesn’t surprise me that atheists are impressed with him. He believes everything that they do in regard to the issues of this debate, except in the end he states that he is a Christian with no further explanation of ~what~ he bases his Christian beliefs upon. It sounds to me that he bases his Christian beliefs on that “feel-ology” thing that you seem to abhor. So, I’m not sure why you are impressed with him. I actually exchanged a few emails with him once because he is someone who is of extreme interest to me as well. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere between his theology and his science. Of course, he was not keen on telling me much because he had read my review of his KU lecture, but he did mention something that I felt might shed a little light on the reason for his beliefs. Anyway, I am curious why a guy like Miller impresses you when he doesn’t seem to me to be using his intellect in regard to his religious beliefs - rather he seems to rely on “feel-ology“. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 18:55:37, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I've read his book as well, and I found it extremely lacking in evidence for macroevolution or common descent. He also made grand claims that ID had been debunked and that the there existed evidence that the flagellum evolved. If that's a fact, we wouldn't see scientists still writing papers trying to dismantle ID. But, your quote above is exactly my point. His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well. So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.” And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology? As for Wes' paper, I truly am not an expert on the EF and truth be told I’m not terribly interested in discussing it. I believe that you people have a very legitimate point. ~At this point in time~, it is still difficult to pinpoint exactly what is too complex to have evolved through evolutionary mechanisms. But, at the same time, there is such vast complexity in nature that it is equally difficult to provide explanations of evolutionary pathways that explain what we observe in nature, not to mention providing empirical evidence that supports common descent. I certainly support further research in attempting to answer these difficult issues in regard to evolution. I do not support replacing evolution with ID because, in my mind, it’s a completely different concept. Truth be told, I think the two concepts should be considered hand in hand. I think it merely boils down to philosophical arguments that prevent people from rejecting either concept. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 19:06:10, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
George wrote:
Certainly, in the end, there is an element of faith that that leads a person to believe or reject God. But, there are certainly lines of evidence that one can consider when choosing to accept or reject specific faith beliefs. Question: What kind of TE are you? You mentioned "God"... Christian? Jew? And, ~why~ do you adhere to your belief in God? If you base your beliefs "purely on faith" what led you to accepting that faith? Feelings? How do you know your feelings are correct? Do you care one way or the other? Do you believe in specific things about God, or do you just believe there is a "God" out there somewhere ultimately responsible for your existence? |
| Date: 2007/04/09 21:27:49, Link 152.163.101.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Blipey, I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you... You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance. You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*. True to my promise, I did just that. I have always kept my word when I've said I was going to post about something. You said, if I ever did post something about it, you'd be interested in discussing what I wrote. But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about. Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either. What difference would it make if I did that? Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else. You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me? I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues. Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent. That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell. If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off. And, Doc Bill, I'm not even sure how to respond to that crap you threw out there. Are you okay? Ya sound a little unbalanced. btw, Stevestory, thanks for sending that one to the bathroom wall. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 21:36:19, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
For the sake of argument, Dave, let's assume that I know absolutely nothing about *anything*. How's that work for you? Now, you teach me. You start wherever you need to in order for me to understand why macroevolution is a ~fact~. You can act as though you're talking to a 1st grader if that makes you happy, but teach me something instead of endlessly telling everyone that I'm a half baked moron. I await for my first biology lesson.. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 22:44:01, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you. As for the rest of your post, let me clue you in to something. I did not enter this forum looking to discuss science with any of you. I don't know why you even keep engaging in discussion with me. I found out that Richard had started a whole freakin' thread dedicated to ripping me apart. Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true. It's irritating as ####. So, I popped in to give Dave a piece of my mind. Sigh... I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this. I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again. ~I know how frustrating that can be~. So, I’ll go research the topic on my own and perhaps post something about it at my blog at some point. (That doesn't mean I'll write a post on it *tomorrow*, Blipey, so don't come to my blog nagging for it.) BTW, Blipey, if you post at my blog, you seriously need to change your attitude. I won’t post comments like the ones I’ve seen you put through to date. Take a pill or something before you start putting down your thoughts so they don’t come out so nasty. I don’t mind you people posting comments at my blog, but just try to be nice about how your respond. Dave was doing ~really~ well there for a while until he flew the coop. I just can’t deal with people treating me like shit on a consistent basis. And, Dave, if your only objective for commenting at my blog is to find ammunition to state endlessly that I "know nothing about science", than just quit reading my stuff and save yourself the agony. My blog's not terribly popular so it's not as if what I say is going to have any affect on this debate whatsoever. Probably 90% of my readers are pro-Darwin anyway. So, just relax and quit worrying about proving my ignorance. Have a nice evening everyone. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 09:42:10, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
Sources say that Eugenie has visited the museum with BBC reporters. LOL, lordy, that had to be an interesting visit...  |
| Date: 2007/04/12 10:07:58, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Wesley, Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion. If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either. SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment". Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about. Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason? |
| Date: 2007/04/12 10:18:53, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously. I merely don't allow people to talk down to me in my space. If they do, I'll either flick the comment into space or let it go through and shove the attitude back in their face. And, fine, I'll go back to my blog now. But, I think it's really, really, a bad move not to engage with IDists when they are plastering the invitation all over the media. Just, MO. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 10:26:14, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Was there a "discussion" in Dover? I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject. JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Dialogue? Debate? I think not. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 10:55:30, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
What does this gobbledygook mean? "critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes? |
| Date: 2007/04/12 11:19:31, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I'm kinda thinkin' that the ID folks aren't going to hurl insults like the ones I find sitting in moderation on my blog. It also seems to me from what I've read that the SMU professors aren't being denied anything. Sounds like they can come in a say whatever they want. It's called *dialogue*. Conversations *with* each other rather than *at* each other. Btw, Richard, are you saying that Dave, Blipey, and Zach's arguments suck? Perhaps you could do better? Doubtful, hon. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 11:33:36, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Nope, actually I use that word quite often. Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term. Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 12:26:42, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
No. Not the entire thing. If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again. I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading. I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al. if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*. Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post. Right now, work calls... |
| Date: 2007/04/12 15:00:43, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
ROTL... Nope, that's definitely post-snake. See those cave kiddo’s in the car? Dead give away, buddy. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 15:48:48, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 15:58:10, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!!! |
| Date: 2007/04/12 16:16:18, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 17:30:28, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||||||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||||||
Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.
Um, no, considering who you are, I can definitely understand your fury.
Hmmm...sounds exactly like what I see you people doing to them.
Good win...LOL. You didn’t have to say a word, did ya? Truth be told, I’m not sure ID belongs in K12 curricula (yet) either. It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.
Doing so looks very cowardly. Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out? If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about. As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.
Um....how in the world is that scenario any different than an actual debate in the sense that it might help make "legitimate the question" as to whether ID is a threat to Darwinism? Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks? Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.
You’re making a huge error, big guy. Your minions are out everywhere lecturing and writing books and articles trying to sway the public away from ID. You have already “legitimized” ID due to your intense battle against it. Now, when you refuse to debate in a situation like SMU, that looks really, really bad. It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the accusations you’ve made against design. Here's what I think..... SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...  |
| Date: 2007/04/12 17:40:18, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I think you're missing my point. I LET DAVE, BLIPEY, AND ZACH post at my blog when they actually engage in civil dialogue. In fact, Zach has suprised me with his comments lately compared to some of the stuff he's left me in the past. Luv, the comments you leave me don't give me much to work with. Usually, you're merely complaining about moderation. Other times you post under "anonymous" and make some useless comment as well. Speaking of Dave, I better get back to my blog and finish up my response to his last comment! |
| Date: 2007/04/12 18:00:03, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
In an on-line forum? The public isn't like to find exactly where you want to hide these little on-line debates. There's no media coverage, and it's unlikely that one would have the fortitude to scan through all the ad homs, etc. to get to the meat. People tend to get to the subject much more quickly when face to face. College campuses are the best place to discuss these issues, IMHO. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 18:39:10, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
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.
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 18:51:25, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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). |
| Date: 2007/04/12 22:22:49, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 22:41:02, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
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!>.
Patience--I just posted my response to Jeremy. You're next. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 22:51:05, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 23:10:22, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
|
Here's one to add to your collection, Richard: Scott, aka slpage, aka Doppelganger wrote:
That one won’t see the light of day at my blog. Now if it were someone other that Scott, perhaps I’d consider it teasing, but I've never known Scott to have much of a sense of humor, so I flicked it into space. |
| Date: 2007/04/12 23:14:09, Link 152.163.101.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Here's another:
LOL -- no clue what was going on in the mind of 'ol anonymous. If I had to guess, it was probably Richard. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 07:30:04, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 07:37:33, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
| I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids). I'm most certainly not Diana. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 08:16:36, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 09:02:37, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
|
THIS JUST IN.... SMU will present "good science" today to off set the "bad science" that ID will present. So what will they present as "good science"?
Holy crappers. Evidently, this is no joke. The more inquisitive students must be wondering why those profs. won't step up to the plate and debate. Hopefully, the students will start asking questions about this hesitation to engage in dialogue. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 09:17:04, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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.  |
| Date: 2007/04/13 09:57:44, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 10:48:44, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments. It must have some secret meaning! .....At the gate at midnight... ....Friday the 13th..... So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!" Today is Friday the 13th!!! What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU??? So mysterious... |
| Date: 2007/04/13 10:57:52, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 12:13:47, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 12:29:25, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
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:
HTH....probably won't, but at least it will give you something else to bitch at me about. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 14:13:22, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Maybe you should have gone ahead and read the rest of 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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 14:30:09, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 14:37:13, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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". |
| Date: 2007/04/13 14:51:26, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 15:03:58, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 15:32:59, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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!!!! |
| Date: 2007/04/13 16:13:16, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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? |
| Date: 2007/04/13 16:30:32, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 18:06:34, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
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.
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 18:29:31, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. ;) |
| Date: 2007/04/13 18:37:22, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Okay, I'll buy that. Sorry to have made that connection. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 23:27:21, Link 64.12.117.20 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Hi Jack...and thanks! ps: Stevestory - Jack isn't talking about this forum, he's talking about other places I comment at. |
| Date: 2007/04/13 23:53:56, Link 64.12.117.20 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 09:21:26, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 09:28:57, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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". |
| Date: 2007/04/14 09:53:07, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
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:
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.
Well, for a guy who doesn’t like getting insulted, you certainly have no problem insulting others. I’m not a liar. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 10:38:25, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 10:51:11, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 11:13:34, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 17:27:40, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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? |
| Date: 2007/04/14 17:50:13, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||
Hi celdd!!! Gosh, all my old friends from KCFS seem to be showing up. Fun times.
I didn't know that I rejected one of your comments. I don't know why I would have done that. You're usually tame in how you carry on conversations with me.
That comment is unfair. I have always acknowledged evolution as "valid". There has been nothing "progressive" about that acknowledgement.
Well, all of that is easy to claim in one paragraph, but I've read countless books and articles from both sides of this debate and have come to the conclusion that at this point in time, science has A WHOLE LOT OF WORK TO DO before they can make outrageous claims like the one you just made above. You may get there some day, and all power to you in filling in the gaps. I have no intention of supporting anything that puts a stop to further research into evolutionary claims.
Can you provide scientific evidence for that? I can't. Scientists are still searching for answers in regard to the origin of life.
No, I don't think science has answered that question yet either. Scientifically, I'm saying we can't rule out design. As to how you scientists are going to get that fact worked into your science, I'll await patiently. Gosh, I'm hoping the whole mob from KCFS doesn't show up or I'm going to have to quit my day job. Hope all is well with you and your daughters. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 17:58:07, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
| 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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 18:12:03, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
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. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 18:19:16, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Ugh....serious deja vue going on. I'm not going there again. Too time consuming. |
| Date: 2007/04/14 19:09:02, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
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...  |
| Date: 2007/04/14 19:29:22, Link 205.188.117.5 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
HI CONNER! Gosh, this is fun. Hope all is well out there on the west coast! |
| Date: 2007/04/14 19:32:31, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Neither would mine. I think it would be biased to use those words, don't you? |
| Date: 2007/04/14 19:37:32, Link 205.188.117.5 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Nothing, other than just having some fun.
Not a thing. I'm basically just shooting the breeze and getting to know some interesting folks. That's pretty much it. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 15:58:48, Link 65.71.172.19 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys? As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you. Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes. I would never support such a thing. That's crazy. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 16:12:03, Link 65.71.172.19 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!
Again, I DON'T SUPPORT ABSTINENCE ONLY CLASSES. SO, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT USING TAXPAYER $$ TO SUPPORT IT. I SUPPORT ABSTINENCE PLUS SEX ED CLASSES Jeez, you people are dense. Of course, this is the EXACT same thing they did to the Kansas Board of Ed. The moderates screeched to the media that the board wanted to place abstinence only sex ed classes in KS schools. THAT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE! The board supported ABSTINENCE PLUS classes. I emailed some of them myself to be sure of what they supported. Keep spinning my friends. It'll catch up with you in the end. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 16:45:56, Link 65.71.172.19 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Oh, forgive me!! How silly of me to suggest that perhaps those youngsters may not have thought about all the baggage that can go along with having sex with whomever & whenever at a young age. How's this..the teachers stands at the head of the classe and states that today is a big 'ol party day and the party favors are flavored condoms in a plethora of assorted colors!!! Far out. Then she spouts off all the other ways to try to avoid pregnancy and STD's . But, not to worry! If those don't work and you still get knocked up, there's always the abortion option. At the end of class, she can tell them to go out and fuck to their hearts delight!!! Heck, she could pair the kids up and let them have a go at it right there in class! They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school?? That would surely give them some SEX EDUCATION. The teacher won't have to deal with the repercussions, the parents and the students will. What in the heck is wrong with you people? Abstinence should certainly be suggested and discussed, along with discussions of the emotional issues involved in sexual relationships. There should also be discussion about treating the opposite sex with respect. I'm thinking Richard and I would fail that part of the class. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 17:01:35, Link 65.71.172.19 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
You must be daft. There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum. There are very few people here who are capable of discussion. And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width. They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation. Lenny's a real piece of work. I have no idea why you people allow him to post here. Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is. |
| Date: 2007/04/16 18:02:31, Link 65.71.172.19 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Arden, you're as bad as Lenny and Oldman.
I don't have any concern for your thread width. I'm saying it is impossible to carry on a descent conversation when some idiot posts 6-7 separate posts in a row, saying virtually nothing (other than they are are to stop creationists) and using one phrase from their opponents post for each of their separate posts. When people pull that stuff, it's apparent that they are putting no thought in their response at all. They see the first sentence they disagree with, get pissed, post, they go back and see something else, post again, etc. Lenny is a mess. And, some of you have some serious issues with religion that probably would be better handled by a professional. I have no idea what happened in your past that got you to this point, but thank goodness there aren't many like you in the world. Sheesh. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 17:28:03, Link 65.71.172.153 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Do you guys realize how often you keep repeating this mantra? It's as though you're trying to convince yourselves, and evidently the repetition is comforting. I don't know if you’ve noticed, but ID (and creation science for that matter) is more widespread then ever before. People are curious at this point because the Darwinists act like raving loons the second ID is mentioned. The inference has been banned from the science classroom, but I think that probably makes it all the more intriguing. I guess I should be thanking you guys... |
| Date: 2007/04/18 21:41:14, Link 65.71.172.215 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me. It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy. LOL... Nope, personally, I think the ToE and ID can get along rather nicely together. Though, I think the proponents of each will fight like children until the end of time (which might be very soon, if the global warming "experts" are right). |
| Date: 2007/04/18 22:12:19, Link 65.71.172.215 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Sorry about all the laughing, but this place does give me oodles of entertainment. I like the way you all pat each other on the back and rave about your intellect. But, readers would be hard pressed to find anything here that displays all that immense "intellect". Though, lame jokes seem to be all the rage. I gave my sister the link to this forum. She always finds arrogant enlightened "intellectuals" highly amusing as well. She doesn't find Richard attractive, though. She thinks I should never have sent him those pictures of me in a miniskirt. She also asked if he was retarded due to the hat and the inability to write a decent sentence. That took quite a bit of background information to explain! |
| Date: 2007/04/18 22:35:03, Link 65.71.172.215 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Gosh, Doc Bill, you've got all that, and you still aren't able to convince the public that the "all powerful" mechanism of natural selection is the only "intelligence" needed to account for everything in nature. I know, I know, Americans are, for the most part, completely ignorant and unable to process these issues like you "enlightened" sciency types are. But keep talkin', because every word that comes out of your mouths is quite helpful to ID. All the blatant anti-religious rhetoric only solidifies the fact that ya'll aren't here due to the science. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 22:53:37, Link 65.71.172.215 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Well, Blipey, I'm certainly not going spend much time doing research work for you. But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters. One of the "moderate" KS school board members alluded to the fact that ID is growing when she whined about it at a panel discussion at KU. She stated that in '99 she received many emails from individuals in other countries questioning why there is such a problem with "creationism" here in the states. In 2005, she received emails again, but this time they were complaining that the "problem" was in their neck of the woods as well. ID used to be a US "problem", but now it's EVERYWHERE. Probably makes you want to go have a good cry, no?? Oh, and what about the recent Salk Institute Conference? Sounded like the scientists attending that shindig were absolutely frothing about the popularity of ID. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 23:02:07, Link 65.71.172.215 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Not a problem. I truly, honestly, cross my heart hope to die, swear on a stack of bibles believe that the ToE has NOTHING to do with atheism. It's merely a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less. But, atheists, on the other hand hold to the ToE and specifically the all powerful and majestic ~natural selection~ as their source of life and will go down fighting for it just as a theist would fight for their right to worship their particular brand of god. How's that? Will that work for ya? |
| Date: 2007/04/18 23:10:59, Link 65.71.172.215 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Oh, you mean in the same way that macroev. and common descent have produced results? [snicker] Microev. has been vital to science, but scientists were aware of microevolutionary changes long before Darwin. The rest of it is just window dressing for philosophical leanings. If scientists had excluded the macro. mindset long ago, it wouldn't have had any affect on scientific advancement whatsoever. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 23:21:50, Link 65.71.172.215 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Well, hey, I think ID is doing darn well considering that it is literally banned from all educational systems due to Darwinists threatening the jobs of those who dare speak the words "Intelligent Design". Can you imagine how many students google for ToE information throughout the school year? It's all they've got, and they certainly need to research in order to get good grades. So, obviously, the "ToE" is going to have many more hits in that respect. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 23:26:42, Link 65.71.172.215 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Well, boys, it's been fun, but I've got to go get some sleep. Later... [Richard, I'll be dreaming about you in your funky little Tard hat.] |
| Date: 2007/04/19 20:31:15, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oh, get real Blipey. Why the heck would Dave suggest that a "Christian" couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger that killed those 33 individuals unless he was baiting you guys. Obviously, Christians have gone off the deep end in the past. Good grief... as if Christianity can keep all adherents completely unsusceptible to pain, grief, or whatever it is that causes people to lose touch with reality. I was trying to save you from looking like an idiot, but I'll certainly let it go through if that's what you want. Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys. Wake up. Sheesh. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 20:59:57, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Here a big news flash for ya: I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 21:16:17, Link 65.71.172.8 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Yup, I figure the guy needs a place to mess with you nasty 'ol meanies. From what I understand you've banned him from posting here. Personally, I find him highly amusing. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 21:37:06, Link 65.71.172.8 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
LOL....probably not. Obviously, I'm not a scientist. I merely love to read and research about this topic. It's a hobby (that I don't have time for). As I've stated many times on my blog, I write about this stuff because I'm pretty much obsessed with the topic, and my husband can only take so much of my banter. He finds it quite interesting, but not on the level that I do. His eyes start to glaze over when I go on and on about something I've read. I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face.  My friends and family know I'm into this stuff, and they occasionally ask me questions. They take me seriously. Usually... |
| Date: 2007/04/19 21:41:04, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Hey Richard, how come I made Arden's signature line, but not yours!! You better do something about that. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 21:43:37, Link 65.71.172.8 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 21:55:19, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
ROTFLMAO...you're a mess, Richard. Oh, btw, I grew up in the disco era, not the 50's. Jeez, you're making me feel ancient! |
| Date: 2007/04/19 22:36:21, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I'm not lying. I honestly couldn't care less what anyone in this forum thinks of me. And, yes, I was very involved at KCFS for several years, I was serious, and I learned a lot. One thing I learned was that the most important issues in this debate are based on the ~interpretation~ of evidence, so if someone is set on a particular interpretation due to their philosophy or religion, there is no convincing them otherwise. And, most of that significant "evidence" is based on historical inference, so it's next to impossible to refute. My feelings are that neither evolution, ID, or creation science will ever reign as ~the~ theory that ousts the others. It's like a tennis match...one side points me to talkorigins, the other points me to trueorigins, etc., etc.. The ball will bounce back and forth literally forever. I do take my blog seriously, and I try to be fair to everyone who I think is at least trying to state their case politely for my readers. But, as far as this forum is concerned, I'm just here for the laughs. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 22:41:09, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Take a chill pill, Blipey. I posted your comment. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:03:32, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Yeah, that "wallowing in ignorance for years" has been a real bitch. Oh, btw, the "sky pixie" scenario is highly overused. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:14:28, Link 65.71.172.8 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Because you were merely looking for a fight. That's why. Obviously, that comment isn't going to lead to anything productive. Nonetheless, it's there now, so you can sleep peacefully. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:19:41, Link 65.71.172.8 | ||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||
I'm scared. Seriously. Somebody, call him off. |
| Date: 2007/04/21 18:52:42, Link 65.71.172.232 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Dave, you need to remember that it's not all about you, hon. I've had to remind you of that in the past. I stated that "You've all had a chance to get your digs in now". That was refering to ~everyone~ who commented on that thread, including me. I knew that post would probably flair up a few emotions, and now it's time to put a stop to it. At a point, it just become counterproductive to keep after each other. Carry on... |
| Date: 2007/04/23 10:39:50, Link 65.71.172.194 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
For a KSU professor, you sure act more like a preschooler, Dave. Ya gonna come over here and nark ~every~ time I reject one of your comments? Go for it, but that might keep you pretty busy. The only people who read this forum are die hard ID bashers. What do I care if you come over here and tattle. BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past. If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what? Buzz off then. Have a great day. |
| Date: 2007/04/23 21:57:46, Link 65.71.172.241 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Steve, No, I'm not serious, and yes, I understand the capital letters & the Dave connection. That's pretty obvious. Bear in mind that I never plan on being "serious" here. I just get a kick out of watching you people act like complete goofballs. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 07:47:00, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Yeah, it is cool. That's why I put it on my blog. And, yes, I noticed that they didn't mention any flowering plants. The 4.5 billion year age of the earth doesn't bother me, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, Arden. But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate. So sue me for not refusing to join in the dogma. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 08:22:31, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Scott, You are such a liar. Seriously, how do you live with yourself? Brown did participate in that thread. The debate went on for months. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 08:45:50, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished". That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part. Just like anything I might choose to discuss here, it would be spun to your liking. I've had no serious discussions here, yet when I did merely mention sex ed classes, that conversation was contorted to what you wanted to think I supported. Yet, in writing, I had already given my opinion on the matter. It didn't match with what you relayed to readers later. Not surprising. I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate. It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call. NO THANKS. You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 09:47:44, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
More misinformation. I've addressed that false spin here before as well. Sigh... |
| Date: 2007/04/24 10:03:08, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 10:25:46, Link 65.71.172.134 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
No, I don't trust any of you. I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd. You want to read the Brown thread? Go for it. It ran from June '05 - Sept '05, with about 1900 comments to the thread. I tried setting up very fair parameters in that particular debate, but to no avail. People were evidently so intimidated by the thought of debate that I couldn't get 3 judges (you'd have to read the thing to get the idea). Now, we'll see what jerks you people actually are. If you start quote mining from that thread and showing disrespect and ridicule, you'll prove my point. If you are able to control your emotions and act civilized when commenting on what you find, you'll prove me wrong. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 10:39:03, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
| LOL, I've set Meert straight on more than one occasion. I'll have to see if I can dig up some of our old conversations about his "offer" to debate Brown. What a crock. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 12:14:14, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Louis, this shouldn't be a surprise since I've mentioned it repeatedly, but I don't care whether you think I'm dishonest, stupid, moronic, or any other choice of adjective you choose to use. I've discussed many issues on my blog and at KCFS. Peruse that if you need a fix, but I'm not going to be discussing anything in this forum. I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum. Have a great day!  |
| Date: 2007/04/24 12:50:19, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Louis, Let's be honest. Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject. I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't. Pretty much end of story. And, as far as my readers are concerned, I have all confidence that they will certainly understand why I do not engage here. But, thanks for worrying about me. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 13:44:55, Link 65.71.172.134 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Good grief, what the heck is wrong with you, Oldman? You're just dying to get into a big YE/OE bashing session, and I provided on the other thread a freaking 4 month long debate I was involved in called "Brown's evidence". What the heck more could you want? Read it...have a ball. I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread. Well over 40 I'm sure. I have never said that I believe YE creation scientists to be right and other scientists to be wrong. I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate. I don't think ~anyone~ has it right yet. So there. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 14:08:23, Link 65.71.172.134 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Holy smokers, some of you people are dense. I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA". I've provided a link to prove it, and that is only one freaking thread of hundreds I've been involved in over the past 3 years or so. I merely won't go through it here again with you people. There is no point in it. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 17:50:45, Link 65.71.172.134 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Hmmm...I get that accusation alot. Here's a thought...quit responding to me, or better yet, don't set up whole threads highlighting everything I blog about. I don't look for the attention, it seems to come to me. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 18:24:43, Link 65.71.172.134 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Yes, completely. It's all I was taught in high school and college, and the churches I attended growing up never mentioned anything about "flood geology", or a "young earth". Most churches that I'm familiar with wouldn't touch that subject with a 10 foot pole, and the one I attend now doesn't hold a particular viewpoint on it either.
My kids were young and into the whole dinosaur deal. I was surfing the net looking up dino info. for them, and ran across some young earth stuff, and at about the same time I was attending a bible study (that had nothing to do with this subject) and some guy brought in a film on flood geology. I'd never heard of anything like it, and the leaders of the class had no comment about it, but they let the guy show part of the film.
I "listen" to all "authorities", and I have certainly not made any final decisions on these issues. I also DO NOT in any way believe that the earth MUST be young to validate scripture. I do think there is conflict with common ancestry and scripture, but perhaps one day a TE will put something together to rectify that problem. But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not). I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms. And, yeah, I think "charm" figures in there somewhere. I've never met people as rude as the Darwinists in this fight. It doesn't matter how much I listen or what I try to discuss, they treat me like crap. Every once in a while, I'll come across someone who will be kind for a bit, but when they find out they aren't going to change my mind with a few post, they turn on me like gangbusters. I think the way people treat others provides insight to their overall character, and I think that is something to consider in this debate on some level. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 19:31:45, Link 65.71.172.134 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Hon, anything that does not coinsider with your worldview would be considered "dishonest". I've never said anything that is dishonest, but I've been told repeatedly from members of this forum that I'm dishonest. What's the point in fighting that crap? I think respect shouldn't have to be "earned". If everyone treated each other with respect from the get go, the world would be a much better place. It's quite possible to disagree with someone without showing utter disrespect for them. |
| Date: 2007/05/02 22:10:09, Link 65.71.172.153 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
You are such a dope, Dave. My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range. I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron. Personally, I love watching them on the pond. But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing. We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time. My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you. And, they've also been through hunter's saftey. My husband is a stickler about the rules.
News flash, Dave... I'm not a Premillennial Dispensationalist, so I don’t find biblical support for a first “rapture”, a "tribulation" period for the "heathens", and a “1000 year reign”. In other words, I’m not a Tim LaHaye fan. I take care of the planet like anyone else. My husband built our home with conservation in mind. It's a fairly large home, but he did quite a few things so that our energy usage is much lower than the norm. Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey. I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey. Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door. It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people. Really creepy, IMHO. |
| Date: 2007/05/02 22:43:13, Link 65.71.172.153 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Blip, Bilp, Blup...whatever. He seems to spend quite a bit of time and energy on Dave. I'm thinkin' he might have a crush on the poor guy. |
| Date: 2007/05/02 23:05:04, Link 65.71.172.153 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Dave is not "ugly as a mud fence". Here's a thought...how about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be. |
| Date: 2007/05/03 08:51:38, Link 65.71.172.108 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oh great. Now I'm going to have to post pictures of myself because that is the single worst picture ever taken of me, and it's a couple years old....UGH!! I'd seriously like to know who in the #### dug up that picture and how they knew it was me. My name was not in that paper so it's someone who knows me... Liz, Jack, Jeremy, Josh, Burt....speak up. Someone went to some work to find that one. |
| Date: 2007/05/03 11:56:45, Link 65.71.172.108 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
My name is NOT Alice Wright. And, you're right, Louis. I can't believe someone would post a picture of me due to the fact that I have always wanted to remain anonymous and have stated that over and over in different forums. I don't think Jeremy would stoop this low, but I can't imagine who would other than LIZ. |
| Date: 2007/05/03 12:42:05, Link 65.71.172.108 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Connor, Liz would do it. I can't imagine Jack or Jeremy doing it, and it's not anyone I know personally because the people I know aren't interested enough in this debate to follow me over to this forum. Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, I don't have any enemies in the real world. I've always been well liked. It's definently someone from KCFS. |
| Date: 2007/05/03 15:34:31, Link 65.71.172.108 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Dude, I look like hell. Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did. The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists. I think my links work now...but, maybe not. Computer wiz, I'm evidently not. |
| Date: 2007/05/03 22:09:54, Link 65.71.172.108 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Sigh... For the record... I don't advocate killing people. I don't advocate shooting Herons. I don't advocate hunting down people who post my picture on the Internet. Let's see, did I miss anything? If I did, I'm sure Arden will let me know. |
| Date: 2007/05/03 22:13:17, Link 65.71.172.108 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
NO! Keep them to yourself. I've been outed enough for one day. Sheesh! |
| Date: 2007/05/03 22:28:01, Link 65.71.172.108 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
In my front yard. It's common knowledge that I live in Kansas. We do have pine trees here... We had a Thanksgiving shindig that day, and since I'm horrible at getting my family in for professional pictures, we shot a few of us and other friends and relatives. |
| Date: 2007/05/04 08:47:12, Link 65.71.172.37 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Um....are you for real? So, let me get this straight. You think I literally want to "kill" liberals, that I want to instill OT rules and regs., and that because I'm "religious", I hate my fellow man. And, apparently you think that everyone who questions the naturalist creation story feels this way as well? Just curious... |
| Date: 2007/05/04 08:53:26, Link 65.71.172.37 |
| Author: Ftk |
| k.e. I just thank God every day that you live on another continent with lots of water separating us. You're out there, man. |
| Date: 2007/05/04 10:43:12, Link 65.71.172.37 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Okay, there seems to be a disconnect here somewhere. I don't think I've written anywhere that I think those who do not ascribe to Biblical inerrancy are "evil". I also don't think you'll find anywhere that I believe atheists to be "evil". If you do, please check the context as I'm probably joking around. Truth be told, I think the whole "evil" atheist, "evil" fundie thing to be kinda ridiculous. But, at times I play along for kicks. As I've told people before, I don't live in a fundie bubble. I have friends of all faiths (I include atheist and agnostics as those who have "faith"). Just about anything I write here is in jest. I tend to write with sarcasm and I like to joke around. I don't think I'd be flirting with Richard if I thought he were "evil". |
| Date: 2007/05/04 16:54:29, Link 65.71.172.116 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
TGoP writes:
Hit the 'ol nail on the head with that one. Was it not you who recently asked me if I was ever going to talk about anything serious on the other thread? Reread your quote above again.... [giving you time to read] Now, do you understand why it is completely ridiculous for me to try to discuss *anything* of significance here?? |
| Date: 2007/05/06 14:51:57, Link 65.71.172.143 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Blipey, I don't think it's necessarily strange to want to discuss various issues face to face, and yes, it is nice to put a face and name to people who you talk to in these forums. I've met a number of people from KCFS at various functions, and I'm certainly not afraid of them. For the most part they seem normal. I even went to Brian Fleming's flick, The God Who Wasn't There, when it was playing in KC because one of the KCFS posters was going to be on the panel discussion afterward and I wanted to meet him. He had no clue I was going to be there, so it was kinda fun introducing myself. Fleming was there as well, but I couldn't find him afterwards so I didn't get to talk to him. Just as well, I suppose. But, personally, I just think it's a bit weird to tell me you're going to come visit me. I certainly wouldn't mind meeting you at some evo. shindig in Kansas, but I'm thinkin' my husband would find it just a bit odd that some dude I met in a forum shows up at my house out of the blue. I also have no clue why you'd have to come to my house to talk with me about "education" etc. when we can do that on-line. I'm not quite sure why you'd want to meet Dave at his house either. Wouldn't email work just as well? |
| Date: 2007/05/07 12:27:31, Link 65.71.172.181 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Blipey, Try email. Wanna discuss?...we'll discuss privately. |
| Date: 2007/05/07 20:33:52, Link 65.71.172.188 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I seriously don't know how you guys can praise Pat. He is such a scare monger. All his talk about fundies taking over the government is absolutely ridiculous. I live in the freaking bible belt, and I don't know of ANYONE who comes even remotely close to being like the crazy fundies he constantly alludes to. His post made mention that we home school our kids and don't let them learn about science, etc. He's nuts. No doubt there are some fruit loops out there who shelter their kids from the real world, but they're a minority. I mean, let's get real. Just about anything goes these days. We can turn on the tube or Internet and watch any perversion known to man. We have freedom to do just about anything we like, and being atheist/agnostic seems to be all the rage these days. Anyone that is religious is deemed "ignorant". And, isn't Carl Rove an atheist? What the heck is Bush doing with an atheist if he is planning a theocracy? Sheesh, you people are leading a serious paranoia club. True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 07:49:24, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Do any of you know any "reconstructionists" personally? I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate. I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government. Where are these reconstructionists? Do they center around certain denominations or what? I truthfully have never met ANYONE who holds the view of these so called "reconstructionists". |
| Date: 2007/05/08 08:04:08, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I was thinking about this a bit more... I'm not sure what exactly this Ahmanson guy is involved in as far as "reconstruction" *at the moment*, but in regard to the money he supposedly gives the DI -- so what? Should they not accept the donations? That would kinda be like me telling all of you to reject Dawkins, PZ, Weinberg, et. al. They have made it quite clear that they are using science as a means to put a stop to religious nonsense. Should we reject their scientific accomplishments because their mission is not focused on science alone? Do you see my point? I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy. That's just completely insane. At the religious level of the debate, there's nothing wrong with wanting people to consider that there is an ultimate source of our existence. But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 08:12:10, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Wes quoted:
What do you think Shaw meant be this? Elaborate... |
| Date: 2007/05/08 08:18:14, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Hey, oldman, back off. I know how this plays out...I've been here before. If I post something, all of a sudden there are numerous darts thrown and I'm expected to answer everyone immediately. Screw that. I don't have time for it. I'll comment on what I'm interested in, and if I have time later to go back and comment on the rest, I will. Ignore me if you don't like it, but if you start freaking and bellyaching from the get go, I'll ignore everything else you have to say as well. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 10:02:44, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I truthfully do see what the big deal is about that sentence. Design has always permeated much of society as most folks do believe in an ultimate creator of the cosmos. That doesn’t mean that all the world views this designer as the God of Abraham. For those of us who are Christian and consider the designer to be “God”, we *try* to live our lives as Christ instructed. That doesn’t mean we should feel compelled to ~take over~ the government, but that on an *individual* level we live accordingly to how Christ would have us live. Certainly, that belief may influence our political views, but the majority of Christians in the world realize the immense problems that would follow if a religious theocracy were to replace a secular government. Free will enables everyone to make a choice about these issues. If one has done the research and chooses to believe that an ultimate designer is non-existent and that we are the product of chance, then they should certainly have the right and privilege to preach that to the masses if they so desire. But, OTOH, this no-design based perspective should not be the only consideration in the science class. IMO, ID should be considered at some level in the universities. Perhaps the IDEA clubs are the best place to address these issues at this moment in time due to the scare tactics being forwarded by the NCSE and other organizations. I mean, come on...even Dawkins, the atheist’s equivalent to Billy Graham, sees design in nature. Science follows the evidence, yet for Dawkins his philosophical perspective won’t allow for him to do that. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 10:08:56, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Wes, I understood the point, but I was wondering what you believe Shaw to be saying specifically. I also wonder if you agree with his quote. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 11:00:48, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
While I think NCLB is going to fail our children in the long run, I certainly don't think that it was set up to oust science from the curriculum. I mean, come on Dave, scientific literacy is at an all time high. You cannot truly believe that anyone wants to purposely “short-shrift” science in the public schools. My kids seems to be getting a good science education. My 6th grader spends more time on it than my 4th grader, but that probably makes sense. IMO, reading, science and math are the most important classes for our kids, and I tell mine that all the time. BTW, you mentioned you know some "reconstructionists". Do they tell you that they believe there should be a Christian "theocracy"? What are they like in general? Do they hide the world from their children or what? Seriously, I'd like to know what these people are like, because I honestly don't know any. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 12:48:18, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era. Do you have evidence to back that up? I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns. Personally, my family has taken a new interest in science due to this debate. Not because we are out to stop science due to the fact that ~some~ scientists believe that the natural world is all there is. No, it's because we find the issues in this debate extremely interesting, and I find that ID proponents have a different way of presenting science that leads to excitement in learning more about our universe. Evolutionists act as if the world is just a chance event. That doesn't seem terribly interesting or exciting, IMO. Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature. Dawkins writes with some eloquence, but it seems that he has replaced the term “god” with “natural selection”. The man, IMO, is just as religious as the next guy, but he has selected NS as his object of praise. I certainly don’t think that Dawkins writing in regard to scientific issues turns a person away from God. He sees the design, he just can’t accept it. Very strange, IMHO. Two books come to mind to explain what I mean... More than Meets the Eye, by Richard A. Swenson, M.D., and Billions of Missing Links, by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. These two gentlemen recognize the immense complexity and awesome design in nature. Their writing relays this wonder of science to the readers and compels them to want to explore the subject even further. While reading those two books, I went to the net many times to learn more about the subjects they discussed. Evolutionists are BORING because they don’t write or teach with the intensity that those who accept design do. If they did, they’d give credence to design, and WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!! Now, Dave, don't get all defensive on me. I'm sure you are a wonderful and exciting teacher. Don't blow a gasket....this is just MO, and I'm just a stupid creationist, so relax. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 12:56:07, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I have worried about this in the past as well. At this point, our school seems to be doing a decent job of handling the load. But, they do spend extra time working at math and reading for the assessments. At the beginning of the year they have early warning tests and get kids into before/after school tutoring to work specifically on math and reading. This is a good idea, IMO, because that way they don't need to spend so much extra time on it in the classroom. It also benefits those kids who are behind. But, this takes time and money as well. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 13:16:07, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth. I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably. I saw a video by Barton one time, and thought that many of the things in it were interesting, but I didn't realize at the time that he wanted to disolve the much needed wall of separation. But, OTOH, I do think that there was a strong Christian influence during the time of our founding fathers. Today we find that there is a loud movement from the left complaining about virtually everything religious, and we have found that the wall of separation is doing what it was designed to do...help keep the peace between various groups and allow for religious freedom. Though, I do think that many times people take the socas too far. For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away. At the time of our founding fathers bibles were in the public schools as was prayer. Nobody complained then, but today it's as though some people want to rid the nation of Christianity altogether. It's a shame that something so wonderful for some can be viewed as such a negative to others. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 13:21:40, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Okay, maybe. Maybe we need to get NCLB to test on science as well. Do they include science testing at any grade level for NCLB? Regardless, there is no way anyone will convince me that NCLB was set up to do away with science. Richard, did you notice Norway????! -38 - holy crap. So much for the liberal Norweigans. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 13:33:37, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Of course not. But, do you think religion is what is holding the country back from doing better in science? |
| Date: 2007/05/08 14:08:02, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Well, let’s put it this way. I don’t know of many people who put the church before the state. We answer to the law of the government, not so much the law of God, and personally I pay WAY more to the state than I do to the church. Heck there’s nothing left to give to the church after the state takes it’s toll. I don’t think the Church and State are equal -- I think the State takes precedence in virtually every situation. On a personal level, I try to make my decisions in life based upon my understanding of scripture and Christ’s words for us. So, I put that first... not necessarily “religion” or “church” first.
Case by case, IMO. Paul once wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:12...What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside, “Expel the wicked man from among you.” I think Jesus pretty much relays the same idea. He told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world” - John 18:36. Hence, I have no problem with the separation of church and state. IMO, God is more than likely cool with it as well.
Sure, slap a buddha right up against Christ if need be, but I don’t think that we need to hide our religious beliefs from the world, or secretly talk of them in the privacy of the church. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 14:12:30, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oldman, I saw that specific review before I bought the book and almost decided to skip the purchase. In fact, I did at first and then a few weeks later decided to go ahead read it and decide for myself. I'm glad I did. I agree that there were a few sentences he could have left out, but they are few and far between. You'd have to read the book to pick up on his style. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 14:18:12, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dave, What the hell is "religiosity". Sheesh, I didn't even make it past that first sentence. Is that kinda like "Albatrossity". |
| Date: 2007/05/08 14:55:51, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oldman, your agreement with most of my last reponse to you threw me for a loop so I had to go back and re-read it. When I wrote: "I don’t think the Church and State are equal -- I think the State takes precedence in virtually every situation. " I was writing a bit sarcastically and I now see that it didn't come off that way. I don't think that the state should always take precedence, but that we should consider that people hold various religious beliefs and we should try to be fair to all people. So, it would definently be a case to case situation as to whether we side with the "church" or the state. But, like I said, personally, I try to just follow scripture rather than rely primarily on what the clergy from a church might suggest. As far as your statement that it's easy for me to say, but if some other religion ousted Christianity in popularity would I actually be able to live by my words? Good question, and I honestly don't know for sure what my reaction would be. I can say that when atheists suggest that atheism is not a religion and their ~philosophy~ is allowed in the science room as well as other classrooms under the notion of "truth and reason" rather than faith, it is irritating to me. I feel that they have a foot in the door that other religions do not. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 15:21:04, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Know what? That really pisses me off. 1. I'm not on anyone's "side" in if we're talking about evolution vs. ID or creation science. I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones. 2. The fact that you frame this issue in light of SOCAS seems to make my point that you are rejecting ID due to the fear of a theocracy rather than the science. 3. I POINT BLANK SERIOUSLY SUPPORT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. My Mother (who is a strong Christian) once came to one of my kids "holiday" presentations at school and I told her it would be nice if they could sing a few "Christmas" songs. She stopped me in my tracks and pretty much threw the socas in my face and what would happen if public schools went that way. I already knew all that, but I just wanted to hear a few nice Christian Christmas Carols...so sue me for missing traditional Christmas programs. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 15:24:19, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
BTW, I'm not "laughing" at anyone unless they are clowning around. Sheesh... |
| Date: 2007/05/08 16:22:12, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Of course I side with the ID crowd in that respect. Obviously, I wasn't clear. You said that I was trying to act as if I'm on the side of the posters here. I said, "I'm not on anyone's side" refering to those in THIS DISCUSSION. If there is an ID supporter posting to this thread, please let me know. You can search 'till the cows come home, but you won't find anything from me stating that my goal is to do away with the separation of church and state! I thought that was what we were talking about here. I also do NOT believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. have any intention of breaking down the wall of separation. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 18:20:34, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
LOL, sorry Richard. Stevestory was kind enough to take down that yucky picture of me. I could not bear to have it posted over and over again. The poem was very cute though... |
| Date: 2007/05/08 18:50:29, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||||||||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||||||||
I never said it takes philosophy to “combat” ID. I said that, due to the philosophical position of some scientists, they reject ID and creation science as “religion” or “apologetics”. Regardless of anything that is presented as evidence for design or creation science, it is immediately waved away as religion even though what is being presented is science.
No.
It doesn’t “beat conventional science”. It’s just one little ’ol scientific inference in the whole big ’ol world of science. It certainly doesn’t replace anything.
None that I know of.
Because I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter). I think it is the upper echelon of those who deem themselves the “scientific community” that put the scare of theocracy and other bull into the mix due to their own fears. So, we have the NCSE and other organizations scaring the bejesus out of other scientists in general. It’s the scare tactics that turn them off ID, not the inference itself.
Sigh...ID is a freaking inference just as common descent is an inference or the multiverse theory is an inference. Obviously philosophical issues will affect all three. So what? That doesn’t negate the inference. I believe that mainstream scientists are addressing the scientific issues surrounding ID, and we see that daily on-line and in other venues. It would be nice if they were more open to public debate, but I believe at some point they will have to debate or look like cowards in the public eye.
There are all kinds of articles in mainstream journals that point to the inference of ID, but they certainly aren’t written by ID advocates. Although, the writers of those articles do not support design in nature (as IDers do) due to the reigning fear of the implications of ID. But, what exactly do you expect ID supporters to do? I think it’s pretty much up to Darwinists to do the research to provide us with evidence that would dismiss the IC that Behe speaks of. He’s done the research and finds that molecular machines are irreducibly complex. Prove him wrong... As far as ID research, you’re right....I haven’t seen much from them. Though, I think there are many avenues they could explore, such as junk DNA. I keep hearing that there is research being done, so you might want to be patient for a bit yet before you deem ID worthless. But, even if research is done, if an ID proponent points to design, evolutionists are going to scream “science stopper”. At that point, the ball is in the court of the evolutionists. Provide evidence that negates the inference. OTOH, creationists are writing scientific papers and providing interesting peer reviewed articles all the time. Of course creationists are all completely insane and delusional, so we won’t go there.
ID is not philosophy... It’s science. *Your* philosophical position is what keeps you from considering it as such, “oldmanintheskydidntdoit”. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 18:57:40, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Okay, Darlin'. You can PM me with your request... |
| Date: 2007/05/08 20:07:53, Link 65.71.172.55 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
If that is true, why have I seen articles written since the trial trying to disprove the IC of molecular machines? |
| Date: 2007/05/08 21:11:11, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
So, evidently, according to Jefferson, much of what was written about Jesus was bogus. So, why would one claim to be a Christian if they do not adhere to the central tenents of Chirstianity, namely Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy and his death and resurrection? I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate. For instance, let's take a guy like Wesley.. ~If~ he doesn't accept the death and resurrection of Christ, if he believes that the truth of scripture is not actually "truth" but the ignorance of man, or if he thinks that Paul et. al. didn't really know what they were talking about and made up lots of stuff as they went along, why claim to be a Christian? Seriously, why? Why not just be agnostic? I mean, if you think about it, you'd have to rip out quite a few pages of the NT to rid yourself of the notion that Christ = the Messiah. So, what are you left with? The Beatitudes? What's the point? What's the attraction? [edit: thanks to jim for pointing out a spelling error.] |
| Date: 2007/05/08 21:40:41, Link 65.71.172.55 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
J-Dog, don't get too excited. People who know me from these forums know I ask A LOT OF QUESTIONS. It doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that the historical inferences of the ToE are "fact". And, I will always be open to creationist theories because personally I think they are much more logical (shut up - that's not due to my religious beliefs alone). When people have a hard time convincing me of their "facts", they no longer care whether I'm still questioning or not. They turn on me immediately because I don't agree with their "science". ASK DAVE. He was nice to me for all of 10 minutes. Then he discovered that he wasn't able to convince me....became a whole different person. I'm still pissed about that. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 07:39:23, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
|
Dave, Most of your post is BS, and I don't have time to elaborate because I'm going to be busy trying to work and post at UD at the same time. But, there is this again:
This is the second time you've alluded to your "experience" with "authoritarians". What are they like? Seriously. Do they tell you they want to establish a theocracy or what exactly? What makes them "athoritarians"? |
| Date: 2007/05/09 07:52:26, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Wes won't answer it. I've posed this question many, many times, and Christians who don't believe in a literal death and resurrection avoid the discussion like the plague. I just don't understand why one makes the choice to be a Christian when they reject the NT as literal and, in fact, believe that some of what is written comes from an active imagination on the part of the writers. It's as though they claim to be something that they completely disagree with. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 08:48:30, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I'm not challenging your faith...I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY will talk about this issue. If you don't believe much of what the NT says, why are you Christian? Is it more of a belonging to a community of believers that is appealing or what? Why Christianity vs. another faith? Is the quote provided by Carlsonjok accurate in your case? I keep asking these questions and no one will ever give me a clue as to why they choose Christianity above another faith. Is it because they believe there is a higher power, but that we cannot know for certain what that is, so they just go with what is considered right within their family and their community? What's the difference between that and agnosticism? And, if you believe there is a higher power, why would design not be something you are interested in? Perhaps science will eventually discover even more evidence for design...isn't that something that, as a believer, one would be interested in considering rather than completely rejecting? |
| Date: 2007/05/09 09:07:27, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA. Pretty simple really. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 09:11:24, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Why? |
| Date: 2007/05/09 09:35:00, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
?? You mean direct, or offensive? I'm asking direct, straight forward questions. How could I ask these questions in a more delicate manner? It appears that most of you are QUITE direct, and you seem to expect me to answer your questions. How is your approach with me different than how I approach you, Wes? |
| Date: 2007/05/09 09:39:08, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||
Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah..... Maybe you need to consider that your arguments stem from your own personal credulity. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 09:49:52, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
ID is an inference....Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly. Could they have evolved? I think not...but in order to convince me that they could, you need to show conclusive evidence for that assumption. If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion. News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time. Only materalists reject it. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 10:14:18, Link 65.71.172.92 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Many TE are materialists as far as I can tell. I think there is a distinction between the terms "atheist" and "materialist", but maybe I'm wrong. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 10:26:22, Link 65.71.172.92 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Okay, Richard's right. My bad. It's hard to tell where TE's stand though. I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them. They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer. They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~. It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 13:13:56, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable. In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 13:48:02, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Yet, this is not what scripture tells us. There are numerous passages pointing to the hand of God being involved in nature. Christ spoke about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, the Flood.....Paul writes in Roman 1:20 that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” So, again, there is so much of the bible one must reject due to the belief that when we consider the awesome complexity of the universe, it shows no appearance of design. The TE’s I’ve had continuing conversations with state that they do see design in nature, yet they don’t. They do - but they don’t. ???? Just makes no sense. I think what it really comes down to is that the TE’s who reject design are either rejecting it due to their belief that the leaders of the movement are pushing for a theocracy (which I certainly don‘t want either). In this case, I think their fear is misplaced. Or, they truly don’t see design in nature and don’t believe that much of NT is even close to being accurate. In this case, it truly makes me wonder why on earth one would bother with Christianity if they reject the teaching of the NT? So, I don’t think one must reject evolution to be a Christian, because from what I pick up in scripture there are only a few things one must believe to truly be a Christian in the traditional sense. But, when one starts eliminating everything they reject as storytelling, they might find that calling themselves a Christian is a bit of a farce. Honestly, I have no clue how one cannot see design in nature, but then again, I realize that others feel exactly the opposite. I don't know why that is. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 13:54:14, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Scamming me into what? If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan? A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY?? |
| Date: 2007/05/09 14:12:50, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Good grief, Richard... I'm not that literal. It would take another whole thread to explain my views on biblical interpretation. Believe me...knowing you, you don't want to go there. Most of you think that bible beaters believe whatever turns them on anyway, so those type of discussions are pointless. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 14:30:15, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Fucking monks? Monks that FUCK??! I didn't know that was allowed. Who did they fuck? Inquiring minds want to know.
Personally, I think Catholics do by far the worst job of teaching the bible to their parishoners. JUST MO PEOPLE, SO DON'T BLOW A GASKET. Catholics would rather tell people what to believe rather than encourage them to dig into scripture on their own. Most of my Catholic friends have no clue what's in their bible, but they certainly never miss a church service. I asked a few Catholics recently if they attend an adult sunday school, and they said SS wasn't even available for adults. I'm sure that's not always the case, but I wonder what the monks taught you. Care to elaborate? How long did you attend catholic schools? I attended Lutheran school for 8 years, and I was never taught anything about apologetics or evidence for the faith. It centered more on teaching me bible stories and what to believe, not why I should believe it.
Sigh....I'm sure you've heard it all, Oldman. Probably just doesn't jive for you for some reason. If you're really serious about this particular conversation, you can PM me and we'll talk further. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 14:39:56, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
No it wouldn't. I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils. There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with. No matter....just a fucking fluke. Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left. Happens all the time. |
| Date: 2007/05/09 14:52:54, Link 65.71.172.92 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
So, let me get this straight. It's not a theocracy the DI guys are after. It's the money! Yeah, they allow themselves to be shunned by the scientific community because they have no better way to make a living!! They're pretty bright guys...I can think of better ways to make money than to scam Christians. Honestly, Behe seems pretty darn sincere. I'm anxious to read his new book, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can pick it up at the library. DON'T WANT TO GET TAKEN IN BY THE SCAM!!!!! |
| Date: 2007/05/09 17:55:09, Link 65.71.172.92 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Dave, I really wish you would not have said that. I seriously was going to ask DaveScot if he could get Dembski in there to address this issue. Now I can't because no doubt DS does pop in here occassionally, and he'll think I was asking due to the promping here. I'M NOT... I don't care what you guys think. I'm simply sick to death of having to address this issue ~repeatedly~ . I want to know how the DI guys would respond to this, and I figured I might as well try to get the answer from Dembski himself. Now I can't -- bad Dave! |
| Date: 2007/05/09 21:26:23, Link 65.71.172.174 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
There you go again...there is no one more informed than myself and my sciency buddies. Everyone must conform, or we write them off as ignorant loons. They simply don't listen....screw 'em. That approach isn't going to get ya anywhere, Dave. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 07:46:58, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I'll tell you what's really pathetic....the fact that you believe evolutionists are the only people who have a right to educate the public on these issues. You instill the false notion that every scientist, doctor, etc. who rejects the historical inference of the ToE has the IQ level of a baboon. If it was just myself who wasn't able to grasp the "facts" surrounding the theory, I'd have to write it off as ignorance on my part. But, unfortunately for all of you, there are plenty of extremely intelligent folks that feel the same way I do. AND, THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING... |
| Date: 2007/05/10 12:33:28, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Ah, yes, Wesley...I bow before your immense knowledge and enlightened vision. God, you're nauseating. Why don't you get back to work trying to explain what parts of the bible TE's take literally and which parts they don't. Thanks in advance... |
| Date: 2007/05/10 14:01:34, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Your "shot" certainly missed it's target. I don't think you're "right", Wesley. Here's something interesting, though. Why is it that you are given the luxury of avoiding whatever questions you deem unworthy, yet I'm not given the same priviledge? Why are TE's never pushed to explain where they draw the line between what is and what is not considered to be "literal" in scripture? Double standard there, big guy? |
| Date: 2007/05/10 14:14:30, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Really? Cool... I must have missed it. Can you link me to the response from Wes in regard to my questions about biblical literalism? Thanks. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 15:07:53, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I don't see why not. Whenever a creationist or an IDist talks about science, you people consistently accuse them of having a religious agenda. It always comes back to that. So, let's look at that religious agenda. If Wesley thinks that everyone should drop their 'literal fundamenalist beliefs' and replace them with reasonable theistic beliefs so that they can 'accept science' (as if evolution is all of science), he should share with us how to do that, no? I mean, if religion is the root of the problem, perhaps we should be discussing that rather than science. Go back and read many of your posts -- all of you. Religion pops up all the time. You love to get your digs in...it's what keep you going. BTW, the SOCAS thread at UD didn't bring out an agenda of a planned theocracy. The folks who posted seemed to pretty much agree with my take on the matter, and like myself, they see this complaint to be primarily used as a red herring by guys like PAT HAYES. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 15:19:16, Link 65.71.172.122 |
| Author: Ftk |
| No, I don't see anything in my sentence that implied that *I* have been discussing science here. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 15:23:01, Link 65.71.172.122 |
| Author: Ftk |
| I must be missing something...what is new in this article? It thought we already knew that. In fact, I think creationists predicted it. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 17:40:19, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
And, the words of Christ? Some of them have to do with creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood. Those must must have been shoved into the mouth of Christ by the apostles. Heaven and Hell? Nope, science pretty much rules that out. I understand that you can't test for "Heaven and Hell", but I can guarantee you that the atheists here believe that science has ruled them out. How about the numerous miraculous events found in scripture? Science tells us it is not possible for a person to rise from the dead. The creation story would be out completely, as would much of Genesis, yet we are stuck with those geneologies which include an "Adam" and an "Eve". If the fall was a farce, what's the point of Christ's coming and his resurrection? If there was no resurrection, then there's really no point in adhering to Christianity other than for social reasons. Gosh, there is so much to consider. Where does one draw the line as to what is "literal" and what is not? And, who determines what all has been ruled out as far as scripture is concerned? And, the biggest question would be why would one reject scripture for what they believe science has established as fact when scientific views are forever changing? |
| Date: 2007/05/10 17:57:46, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Beats the heck out of me. Maybe he liked it? I can't imagine that an evolutionist would turn down money from Dawkins just because they don't want to be associated with his brand of militant atheism.
Because he supports their work? I've been digging for two days now and can't find a ding dong thing on the guy other than he at one time had supposed ties to Rushdooney. And, from what I've read, his views were not as psycho as Rushdooneys. I can find nothing... no damning articles written by him, no indication that he is working within the government to establish a hostile Christian take over. There is simply nothing there. Lenny you, my dear, are nothing but a scare monger. You apparently hate Christianity and, by god, you're going to do anything in your power to stop it. Pat Hayes is another scare monger. In your twisted mind, ID = religion. It doesn't...it has religious implications just as evolution does. I can live with evolution - all of it. You in turn, are going to have to live with ID. You are doing serious damage to our society. You're stirring up the pot when there is nothing there to stir. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 20:29:06, Link 65.71.172.122 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Lenny, if others have, please inform me what they have found. I have been looking for days and I was going to post what I found at UD. But, I found nothing. If Ahmanson is planning a theocracy, I want to know about it. That poses a huge problem for me, and if there is proof of this, then I will certainly rethink my support for the DI. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 21:58:50, Link 65.71.172.125 | ||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||
Edmund wrote:
But, here is the problem I have. What does Biblical literalism mean to a TE? I assume you must believe that some parts of scripture are literal. If you start cutting away the parts that we cannot prove scientifically, then you’re not left with much. And, if you believe in some parts as supernatural or miraculous events, how do you determine what is miraculous and what is not?
I am interested in what people think or I wouldn’t post at places where I am a direct target for ridicule. Why put oneself in that position? I’m curious, so I put myself out there. I want to know what leads people to believe what they do both scientifically and in the religious sense. Yes, I get testy at times. It gets frustrating when I try to start a conversation with one person and 5 others pipe in with nonsense and poison darts. I wish there was a way in these forums to block out certain posters so that I wouldn’t have to view their comments. I also don’t want people to expect to change my views, I just want to know what leads them believe what they do. BTW, I think my “reaction to that poster” was merely direct, and I don’t see that I displayed disinterest. On, the contrary, I think I asked some very appropriate questions.
And, there again, it all centers on what we mean by biblical literalism. Obviously we have poetry, allegory, parables, etc. within scripture. But, TE’s cut deeper at the core of Christianity and some even reject historical information, and that is something I wish a guy like Miller would write a very detailed book about. If TE’s believe their stance on interpretation is more reasonable, they need to do a better job of sharing their beliefs with other Christians. From what I have seen, many TE’s have gone as far as to reject the resurrection of Christ. I have no idea what the point of Christianity is if one feels compelled to go that far due to their scientific beliefs. You are quite wrong in your assumption that I have not thought long and hard about how science interfaces with theology, but I can understand why you wouldn’t believe that by what I write here. I simply don’t know how to interact with some of these folks. Private conversations is probably the way to go.
True, the scientists here know more about “how science works” than I do. So, if I understand you correctly, the best thing for myself and others is to let go of our skepticism and trust the scientists who support evolution even though they are not able to explain these things to us unless we have taken years of science courses. We should also reject the views of those who dissent because they have silly religious beliefs that don’t jive with reality. See, I have a very hard time with this suggestion. It is next to impossible for me to believe that everyone who dissents is simply ignorant or a religious nut. Another problem for me is that due to an extensive amount of time engaging in discussion with scientists in various forums, the majority of those who are telling me that ID is a farce also tell me that the mission of the DI is to destroy the SOCAS. The majority of them are also atheists/agnostics who seem to *me* to be quite hostile toward those who do find truth in religious teaching. Do you understand why it is difficult to learn from them when I’ve been around long enough to understand that there is more to it than science for many of them? I understand that it is difficult to teach a person everything that you feel they need to know to completely accept the ToE in is full glory. I understand this because when someone throws out a particular question about religion, I feel like I would have to provide an immense amount of background information to make the point that I want to get across. So, I do understand your frustration, I just don’t know how to fix the problem.
Hmmm...but, could it be that prejudice is a two way street, or is that again only something that is used to describe those who don’t agree with you. And, as far as humility is concerned, there again, I think that is something everyone could use some work on. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 22:10:59, Link 65.71.172.125 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
And, one more time.... I suppose it is because the man supports their work. You're not making your point, Lenny. There is no evidence that Morris was or that the DI fellows are working within the government to demand a hostile take over and shut down all science classes throughout the country. If there is -- provide the evidence please. What specifically has Ahmanson written or done showing that he has an army of God's chosen people ready to advance a Christian theocracy against the will of the people? Who in the bloody hell is going to back him? You're delusional if you honestly think that there is a chance for a Christian theocracy to take root in this country. Cripes, man, what is wrong with you? Seriously... I've wondered this for some time now. How old are you...and, have you ever been institutionalized for anything? Dude, I don't think you realize how off center you seem to many of us "Jesus freaks". You're seriously not helping your fellow evolutionists. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 22:28:42, Link 65.71.172.125 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Oh really? I’m not sure you know the definition of either. In fact, I think just about everyone has their own definition of those two words. Dembski is not a fundamentalist -- he’s a Christian. When we consider his quotes below, again we see that he is a Christian who realizes the implications of both ID and evolution. No one is trying to hide these implications, but there is definitely a separation that can be made between the science and the religious implications of both ID & the ToE. These quotes...
...display the man’s Christian beliefs and his concern as to how far we have turned toward materialist views and values with regard to the education of our students. There is nothing in those quotes that displays a hostile take over of government or a call to break down the wall of separation. I agree with him wholeheartedly, but I certainly do not believe this demands that the ToE must be removed from the classroom or that a Christian theocracy must be put in place. It merely allows for our students to once again consider their Christian roots without being ridiculed by those who currently have a strong hold on what our students should be allowed to learn. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 22:48:20, Link 65.71.172.125 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Here you go Lenny... What exactly is the source of your religious authority. God’s word What exactly makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else’s. My opinions should not be viewed any more “authoritative” than anyone elses. It’s up to each of us to search for answers. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. I’m not asking them to. I’m merely asking for the tolerance that you seem to expect for everyone else’s views except mine. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s. We each choose our path, and again, I merely ask that you are tolerant of mine. I’ve never once asked you about your religious beliefs nor have I ridiculed them. I expect the same treatment in return. Are you more holy than anyone else? LOL. Obviously not. Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else? No. Does God love you best? No. Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history? Of course not. What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else’s? Other than your say-so? Well, obviously, you think my opinions are wrong, so I guess I could ask you the same thing. Yet, I believe I'm on the right track, and I'd assume that the other posters feel they are on the right track as well. We make choices based on what we believe to be accurate. I merely think there should be as much tolerance for my beliefs as there is for everyone elses here. Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? No. Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible. Neither do I. Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your say-so? I don’t think you should. It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them. Amen, brother! Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so? Got nothing... GOOD ENOUGH, LEENY POO? |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:02:51, Link 65.71.172.125 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Well, that would depend on the TE. They all believe different things from what I can tell. Fr'instance...Some believe that Adam and Eve are figurative characters who lend to a moral lesson for readers, yet biblical geneologies include these figures as historical as does Josephus in his accounts. There are lots of little issues like this to consider. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:09:13, Link 65.71.172.125 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Elaborate....how is he making his point? What is Ahmanson up to? Solid evidence please. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:25:56, Link 65.71.172.125 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Certainly the dates don't jive (never do), but obviously creationists believe that humans evolved from a "small group" of people who emigrated somewhere near Africa and spread throughout Eurasia. Ever heard of a guy named Peleg? I'm sure you've heard the creationist take on “mitochondrial Eve”. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:53:29, Link 65.71.172.125 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I am so sorry, Blipey. I keep meaning to address your PM, but get distracted out here. Between that, and the little PM fling I have going on with Richard, I can't seem to find the time to get to ya. I promise I'll try to address your post tomorrow...sorry. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:59:02, Link 65.71.172.125 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Sorry to be the cause of that, but I just don't think that a donation is enough to create a evil Christian reign of terror. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 07:06:36, Link 65.71.172.106 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
ROTFLMAO |
| Date: 2007/05/11 07:14:34, Link 65.71.172.106 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oldman, I'm not "lying for Jesus". I told you from the beginning that I'm open minded to both an old and young earth. Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years. But, I'M NOT A SCIENTIST. I'm merely an open minded layperson. As for "original research". Brown's book is lengthy, and he's done plenty of it. But, I know that doesn't mean squat here, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time defending him in this particular forum. Merely thought I'd throw that link out there for kicks. Enjoy. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 07:26:01, Link 65.71.172.106 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
But, the truth of the matter is that what would be taught in regard to ID would not include any type of religious teaching ~WHATSOEVER~. And, ID is also FREE OF A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION. It does not exclude or include any specific religion. The only group it might offend would be those who hold to a philosophical view that there is absolutely no designer. Why can none of you see that? |
| Date: 2007/05/11 07:28:29, Link 65.71.172.106 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Lenny, you sir, are a mess. Carry on. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 07:43:45, Link 65.71.172.106 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Lenny Flank = psycho, psycho, psycho... Either that or a liar...I'm going with psycho. There is no "fundy" regime...and ID certainly has nothing to do with reconstructionism whatsoever. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 07:55:33, Link 65.71.172.106 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Who to believe...who to believe.... Back and forth the arguments go, and where they stop nobody knows. I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something. So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not. Why aren't there more grand canyons? Why should there be? Here, read all of this for shits and grins. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 08:09:47, Link 65.71.172.106 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Okay....now, given the fact that creation is a myth, I'd assume you write off Adam and Eve and the garden. Now, obviously there is more to the story that a tree and a snake, but if you write off most of the beginning of Genesis, what exactly is it that Christ was sent to do? Or, do you reject salvation as well? How do you tie in Christ's work on earth? What was his objective, and who was he really? Did he literally rise rise from the dead or not? If not, what's the point of Christianity? In other words *why* are you a Christian?I hope you'll answer these questions because up to now only one person has been willing to discuss these issues with me and they seemed a bit tentative as to what they believe. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 08:16:45, Link 65.71.172.106 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
?? On ID alone. Crap, evolution doesn't even get that much time in the high school classroom. Science classes usually consist of many topics throughout the week. ID would probably consist of a quick overview of the inference, along with issues like the anthropic principle. In regard to OOL, there is sure more to offer when considering ID than there what there is to learn about "primordial soup"! |
| Date: 2007/05/11 08:31:09, Link 65.71.172.106 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
No where you will find "goddit" in Brown's theory about the grand canyon. Get your fingers out of your ears and the blinders off your eyes and read it. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 09:09:30, Link 65.71.172.106 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Wes, including the supernatural in the science classroom is merely a fear tactic on your part. You know as well as everyone else that you don't have to mention the evil word "supernatural" even once in reference to ID unless you're an evolutionist. Then you have to use the word repeatedly. Alb2 - Ever heard of IDEA clubs? Sal's been teaching ID for years, and he covers plenty of ground. Doesn't matter to me if it stays in that venue for a while -- in the longer run, people will insist it become part of mainstream curriculum. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 10:55:15, Link 65.71.172.91 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
George, I'm not sure you've really addressed why it is that you're a Christian. I assume, from you have said, that it is due to the teaching of Christ in regard to moral issues. But, if you reject the rest of traditional Chrisitianity, you also have to reject quite a bit of the NT which alludes to Christ's actual words. So, what you're left with is perhaps the beatitudes and a few other morally sound (for some people) suggestions. Why Christianity then? Why not some other religion that puts forth a few nice sounding moral laws? See, I think there is much, much more to the totality of scripture than that, and if one studies it extensively, it's terribly hard to reject the notion that there was some form of interaction between a higher intellect and the writers. So, what is it that attracts you to Christianity? Specifically. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 12:03:22, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Yeah, kinda like the way you must teach as a naturalist leaning towards materialism in order to keep from getting fired from teaching a public school science class. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 13:17:33, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
sigh....fair enough. I won't push you further. Thanks for at least answering some of my questions. I appreciate it.
I don't think that people must reject evolution to be a Christian. What I'm saying is that some of them have a difficult explaining why it is that they are a Christian. From what I can tell, TE's vary in their interpretation of what a Christian is. Confusion is okay with God, IMHO (no, Lenny, I don't claim to know what God is thinking, and he doesn't speak to me directly. Just MO.). But, if evolution leads a person to reject 95% of what Christianity is all about, then I really don't see the point in calling oneself a Christian. I know TE's who accept that Christ died for the sins of all believers, yet they have a hard time putting into words how they've come to that conclusion. Okey dokey with me, but I'm thinking that if they are so adament that their stance on biblical interpretation is the only one that can be considered in light of current scientific enlightenment, then they need to help the rest of us understand their position. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 13:41:13, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
The stud in the Tard hat wrote:
Hmmm...I didn’t read anything in that verse stating that we must reject medical assistance. Got something against prayer? Seems to work for some. Here’s something fascinating... The list of medications derived from nature is enormous and growing. Scientists estimate that there are 125,000 to 750,000 medications yet to be discovered. Ancient Egyptians already had 850 plant remedies, and a 5,000-year-old Iceman who was found in the Italian Alp had fungal medicinal powders in his pouch. Why are there so many useful and lifesaving items within our reach? If the Earth were merely a huge collection of dust particules after the big bang, how did it get all these useful products? It’s like |
| Date: 2007/05/11 13:49:27, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Nope. Hubby changed denomination when we got married, and more recently we changed denomination again. The whole denomination dealy doesn't mean much to me. Granted there are little things that cause bickering amongst denominations, but I think much of it is senseless. We attend a non-denominational church in Topeka at present. My Mom was a tad dissapointed, seems my brother and I have broken the Lutheran tradition within my Mom's side of the family. Whatever...gotta go with what feels right and seems to jive with what one reads in scripture. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 14:10:24, Link 65.71.172.91 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Sure, Louis, I wouldn't mind listening to what you have to say. But, there is something about you that rubs me the wrong way. Something about the attitude. How about when you explain it, you... 1. Work hard at explaining in laymen's terms. 2. ...yet, don't talk down to me. 3. Leave out the arrogance. 4. Don't insist that I must chime in and answer all your questions. Just provide the info. 5. Allude to facts as facts, and speculation as speculation. Might be a good exercise in trying to learn how to deal with the general public who think a few of you are full of hot air... |
| Date: 2007/05/11 14:17:30, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Well, I have considered this, but what this tells me is that they wouldn't actually be "Christian", they would be agnostics who feel at home in the Christian community. So, why not just say that? Kind of like DaveScot. From what I understand, his wife is Catholic and he attends various church get togethers with her, and I'd bet he's been to church with her from time to time. But, he's honest enough to say he's not buying it. He's agnostic, yet has no problem being around the Catholic community. See what I'm getting at? |
| Date: 2007/05/11 14:24:41, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Are you saying that I'm arrogant? Me? Nah...couldn't be. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 14:42:36, Link 65.71.172.91 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Many agnostics I know refer to a god or designer...they just don't believe it is possible to know what or who the designer is. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 15:19:15, Link 65.71.172.91 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
In a hurry, so I can only get to this part. Hopefully, come back to the rest later. I'm not saying that an agnostic and a Christian or an atheist and a Christian couldn't manage to "get along". I'm saying that if one does lean toward agnosticism, why not just admit it and say that they enjoy the community of the Christian church but don't buy the whole shebang? |
| Date: 2007/05/12 08:52:01, Link 65.71.172.177 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I have absolutely no idea what you see in Behe's response that you feel could be conceived as deceptive. I still think you are completely and uttering insane. My biggest question for you though, is why in the heck you write 5-10 posts in a row to express your thoughts. Why not put them all on one post? It's truly the strangest thing I've ever seen. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 09:03:11, Link 65.71.172.177 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Louis, I really like this topic. Your post is very interesting, and I've got a couple questions to ask. I read through you article twice last night and jotted down a few things, but I'll have to read through it two more times in order to try to absorb all of it into my tiny little unscientific brain. After I do that, I'll ask my questions. I may not get them posted until Sunday or Monday because I have 4 friggin' ball games to sit through today, and tonight is my 6th grader's big party with his classmates. They head off to junior high next year. Yikes! My baby is growing up... |
| Date: 2007/05/12 09:11:04, Link 65.71.172.177 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Truly, that is the most assinine thing I have ever heard of. That "tactic" completely destroys the thread, and I certainly am not going to go through each separate post and respond. That would turn the thread into an utter mess to wade through. He did that on another thread, and I simply quit posting to the particular thread. I think Stevestory should come in here and clean up that crap. Lenny is fool in more ways than one...and, that is saying something because I very rarely name call. Have a good day. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 09:16:16, Link 65.71.172.177 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Who gives a flying fig? Scientists have discussed the possibility of natural and supernatural occurances since the dawn of time. That certainly doesn't mean that the "supernatural" will be discussed or taught in the science classroom. There is no need to address it in class, just as there is no need to address whether natural or supernatural occurrences started the process of natural selection when we are discussing evolution in the science classroom. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 09:19:56, Link 65.71.172.177 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Wes, Are you saying that you support Lenny's style? If so, that certainly says a lot about your character as well. But, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 09:21:03, Link 65.71.172.177 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Shocking. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 09:23:27, Link 65.71.172.177 |
| Author: Ftk |
| BTW, is there any possible way to keep Lenny & Oldman from posting to this thread? |
| Date: 2007/05/12 10:40:42, Link 65.71.172.105 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
God, you people are infuriating. Is it so utterly hard to understand that some people are looking for answers and that they are open minded to everything? I think the ToE is a fascinating subject. A person doesn't have to be completely 100% convinced that something is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt to find topic interesting to read about. So, let me get this straight, you feel that if a person is open minded to the possibility of a YE, they never again read about anything that might negate that viewpoint? Is that what you think? If so, then you're crazy. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 10:46:23, Link 65.71.172.105 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Someone better get this asshole off the thread, or I'm done. FYI, I have already had questions in my mind about this topic before Louis even brought it up. That is why I mentioned it on another thread. Obviously, there are parts of the article that I don't completely understand so I'd like to take the time to read it thoroughly again before I post. Is that okay, freak boy? And, no, I'm not frantically checking creation websites for Q&A's. I'm leaving in 15 minutes for a ball game. Someone please get this freak off the thread. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 10:50:02, Link 65.71.172.105 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Lenny, I'm not a "fundy", nor am I "Catholic", nor do I listen to Falwell, Pat Robertson et. al. I'm done here until Lenny leaves or passes on to the neatherworld. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 10:52:11, Link 65.71.172.105 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Wes, When you get rid of Lenny, I'll address your posts. |
| Date: 2007/05/12 10:54:36, Link 65.71.172.105 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Fine, Lenny. I'm done here. |
| Date: 2007/05/26 21:33:20, Link 65.71.172.11 |
| Author: Ftk |
     Via prothesis |
| Date: 2007/05/27 08:51:30, Link 65.71.172.161 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
|
| Date: 2007/06/02 13:47:14, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Did you ask him if you could post that publicly??? I had also emailed him and asked for a copy as well, and I found it quite interesting. It should definently be something that is read in totality rather than quote mined, and also with an open mind and without preconceived conclusions, IMO. Personally, I don't think he would appreciate you posting that here, so I do hope you asked permission. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 14:45:10, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
You know what, Dave? You are the *very last person on earth* who I would ever seek to learn anything from. You are arrogant, condescending, and down right nauseating. You can criticize my lack of education about evolutionary biology, ID or whatever until the cows home, but you don’t intimidate me ~in the least~. Know why??? Because there are creationists and IDists who blow your credentials out of the water, and they make arguments that are so compelling that regardless of how much you toot your horn, you’re going to get no where with me due to your complete lack of respect, and your call for "ridicule" and "pity" for anyone who disagrees with you about these issues. And, if you’re interested in predictions from a creationist who is following the evidence where it leads, you can read through all of them thoroughly by going to this index and looking under “predictions of hydroplate theory”. You have not “debunked” all creationists and ID arguments, and if you think you have, I urge you to encourage your evolutionist friends to participate in a very thorough written debate with a creationist or an IDist. Get crazy, and address every freaking issue surrounding this debate, and put it in book format. Hell, make a series of books...whatever. But, all this ranting back and forth is not convincing me of one flipping thing. It’s like watching a tennis match...link to here, link to there, back and forth for an eternity. It’s never ending! Both sides make very compelling arguments, and it should sink in at some point that all three avenues should be explored at length. New information arises daily, theories are updated, and that needs to be taken into consideration. You’re fighting a losing battle if you think that you’re going to lay ID to rest. It ain’t happenin’, so live with it and quit being such an arrogant jerk. and, THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 14:48:37, Link 65.71.172.113 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
I am *quite* aware of why many people do not accept ID as "science". I actually agree with some of their reasoning, but the fact remains that everything that ID relays to the public is scientific. It's about science...not religion. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 14:50:55, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Bird boy is "Dave". Trust me. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 21:26:47, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dang, Steve, I think this might answer one of the questions you keep throwing at me.... Read it and weep, boys. Looks like ID has a lab at Baylor University. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 21:48:26, Link 65.71.172.113 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Uh, Dude, correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but isn't ID all about INFORMATION & IC? I mean, what the heck do you think they are going to do in an ID lab...search for God under a microscope? Sheesh... |
| Date: 2007/06/02 22:02:44, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Sigh...it wasn't me. No doubt it was the Goldstein crew...sounds just like him/them. This is about the 5th time someone has alerted me to someone ~borrowing~ my name. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 22:08:26, Link 65.71.172.113 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
|
Steve, Why does Dembski seem to be involved if the lab has nothing to do with ID? D. wrote:
|
| Date: 2007/06/02 22:25:23, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Good God, Steve, I think the lab is quite new...patience, hon. I'm sure we'll hear more soon. |
| Date: 2007/06/02 22:29:42, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
LOL, Steve, I think you're getting kinda flustered over this new lab. You've spit out about 10 little posts in a row...but, but, but, they can't have a lab at a university...they just can't! CALL THE DARWIN POLICE. PRONTO!!!!!!! |
| Date: 2007/06/02 22:33:53, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
The concept is new, darlin', and you wouldn't even believe who sent me an email alerting me to it. I'm going to go pop a bottle of champagne now...anyone care to join me? Richard? |
| Date: 2007/06/02 22:50:22, Link 65.71.172.113 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
[quote=stevestory,June 02 2007,22:40][/quote]
No, you stated that:
And, I said that the concept of the lab was new. They are exploring INFORMATION (ie. ID concepts). Capisci? |
| Date: 2007/06/02 23:16:45, Link 65.71.172.113 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Steve, I think that focusing on information and IC is basically what ID is all about. Since Darwin's time, we've found that the complexity of nature far surpasses anything he had ever imagined. It's time to put Darwin to the test...how did this information arise? And, is it possible for it to have evolved without the aid of intelligence? Hey, at least with this Baylor lab it should be a bit easier to keep abreast of what it going on with it being a public university and all. Guess we'll find out soon enough... |
| Date: 2007/06/03 14:48:16, Link 65.71.172.34 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Jack, I've posted the Brown's Evidence thread here before. But, as usual, they all had their blinders on...except for Dave of course. He dove right in looking for spelling errors and such to "ridicule" me with. Par for the course... |
| Date: 2007/06/03 19:16:50, Link 65.71.172.34 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
I got to thinking again today about GCT posting excerpts from bornagain’s essays. I’ve gotta say again that I find it really unethical to post something without the consent of the author...especially when it was provided to you by private email without authorization to do so. It is also truly tragic that you all immediately ridicule the conclusions. From what I understand, the studies in this area of research are rigorous and the experiences are validated as authentic with several studies establishing that the mind and brain are in fact two separate entities. To post a few paragraphs, and mock his conclusions is typical of some of you, but again I realize that this is the tactic that many of you wish to use to put a stop to anything that you feel might conflict with your worldview. I doubt that GCT has any PhD. level studies to back up his own views on the topic. I’m just bringing this up again because I don’t think there is anything much lower than sharing private information without consent from the person who has shared it with you. Blipey pulled that crap with me, and I didn’t appreciate it either. Of course, there is also the fact that someone posted my picture again as well. Personally, I think you should have the decency to delete his work from this thread unless you are going to act civil and actually consider it in a professional manner. |
| Date: 2007/06/03 19:36:40, Link 65.71.172.34 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
So what.. If you guys want to read it, go ask him for a copy. But, he didn't give permission to post it anywhere, and it certainly shouldn't be posted here as an object of ridicule. Treat his research the way you would want your work to be addressed. Peer review is great, but gang banging is way wrong. |
| Date: 2007/06/03 20:23:27, Link 65.71.172.34 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Hmmm...that's an interesting comment, Richard. Do you condone sharing private emails or messages? Just really curious about your response to that question. |
| Date: 2007/06/03 21:45:43, Link 65.71.172.34 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Maybe it's just me, but if I offered an essay that I wrote to the public, via private e-mail, I would certainly appreciate the person on the receiving end to ask me whether they would mind me posting it elsewhere. I would also appreciate knowing where and how many places they were going to be posting it. I believe that to just be common courtesy. Personally, I wouldn’t appreciate my work being posted in a hostile forum environment where there is no doubt that it will be received with ridicule and rejection without proper consideration. I didn’t see anyone ask for more information on the essay or ask whether they could view the essay privately in it’s entirely so that they could get a better sense of what the author was sharing with the reader before they commented. And, if there is further research on the subject that others could offer to rebut the papers that bornagain references, that should be addressed as well. Kristine made an attempt at dialogue, though it was also riddled with insults. I know next to nothing about NDE’s, so I would find a respectful dialogue on the topic interesting. But, I don’t think that is possible in this forum. Preconceived conclusions are too strong in this group, so why not treat the guy the way you would want to be treated? I doubt anyone here would want their work thrown out to wolves who have no intention of doing anything but taking a dump on it. |
| Date: 2007/06/03 23:18:37, Link 65.71.172.34 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
"GCT, did you at least read the research before saying it sucks?" And, I said I also said I was kidding when I said "it sucks". |
| Date: 2007/06/05 22:51:37, Link 65.71.172.80 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Now, see Kristine? You think DaveScot's a jerk? I've got about 20 DaveScot's ripping me apart on a daily basis. Don't worry... you get used to it after a while. You can just thank your lucky stars that it's only Dave you have to deal with. But, I'm evidently as moronic as they claim I am because I don't have the good sense to stay the hell out of these anti-ID forums and blogs. I remember DaveScot referencing you at UD one time in regard to a 'jungle fever' article you posted here. At least he was nice about it, and didn't rip you apart. Sheesh, there's an entire thread set up over here to dog me on a daily basis, so I guess you're getting a small taste of what it feels like to be in my shoes. Um, speaking of "jungle fever", where's Richard? |
| Date: 2007/06/05 23:06:48, Link 65.71.172.80 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Oh, and as far as the “pirahna” reference...yeah, you’re right. I have no idea what the heck I was trying to say there. Piranha certainly sounds idiotic, but pariah sounds kind of stupid in that particular sentence as well. Just a serious fuck up, if you ask me. But, God forbid we consider the thousands of other posts I wrote at kcfs. I know...wouldn’t matter...still ‘tard’ material. Thanks alot, Dave, for digging through my kcfs posts to dig that one out. Nice of ya. |
| Date: 2007/06/05 23:10:31, Link 65.71.172.80 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Really? Until you post your picture, Arden, we can't be sure of that now can we? That's another thing!!! Someone even posted my freaking picture here...and God only knows how they found it. That was in a paper from years ago. Freaky stalkers!!!! |
| Date: 2007/06/06 00:05:03, Link 65.71.172.80 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
|
Dave, call me a tard, but I just don't understand why common descent is vital to the example you’ve provided. You wrote:
Creationists don't think that everything was "uniquely poofed" into existence. Granted, microev. can accomplish alot, and creationists believe it can account for countless changes within a species. But, as far as similarities between species is concerned, obviously an Intelligent Designer would not need to redesign every living organism in order to reassure us that we are not all related to a common descendant. Most designers we witness in our world don’t reinvent the wheel for every product they design. Automobile designers use the same parts for most cars and tweak them for different purposes, yet they are all designed for the same driving environment. The same thing applies to all living creatures. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food. WARNING: I’M GOING TO QUOTE DUANE GISH...SO PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF YOU CAN’T HANDLE IT, STOP READING RIGHT NOW! I think Gish’s statement helps support my position about this topic:
What I keep trying to get across to you is that I don’t understand why a creationist and an evolutionist couldn’t work side by side and come up with the same conclusions. Either way...whether by common descent or special creation, we’re studying and comparing similarities between species. Both a creationist and an evolutionist will come to the same conclusions regardless of ~how~ they believe it “evolved” to its present state. And, it’s not that I feel I must reject macroev. due to my religious beliefs. Heck, there are lots of TE’s that have the same Christian beliefs that I do, and I don’t by any means believe we must reject evolution in order to receive salvation. The Bible doesn’t say that ANYWHERE. I, personally, don’t see any empirical evidence that macroev. actually occurs in nature. I only read about historical inferences and a whole lot of speculation and just so stories. |
| Date: 2007/06/07 14:27:32, Link 65.71.172.143 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Hey, how come there isn't an *eyes rolling* emoticon in this forum? I really need one for a response I'm working on. Just wondering... |
| Date: 2007/06/07 17:12:17, Link 65.71.172.143 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Not exactly...that rolling eyes is smiling. But, I do like the hammer guy. |
| Date: 2007/06/08 08:43:37, Link 65.71.172.131 | ||||||||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||||||||
Dave wrote:
No, I don’t think Gish “misses the point” because I didn’t quote him in response to your particular example. What I’m trying to relay is that evolutionists believe that everything must have evolved through common descent due to the similarities they observe between organisms. Creationists believe that due to how the designer formed the cosmos (with the intention that all organisms were going to live in and of the same environmental constants), there is the need for all creatures to be designed with similarities.
Okay, Dave, I’ve “[thought] about it“. And, I’m still “OK so far”. [I was going to roll my eyes here, but I know Dave is ~trying~ to be helpful, and he did sent me a pretty cool biology textbook, so I’ll cut him some slack for a couple days....maybe.]
Right...
Why? If both creation scientists and evolutionists throughout history have been conducting research and experimentation in regard to the similarities between organisms, why would their results look different? Both would be comparing similarities and documenting them for future use, so why wouldn’t both be aware of what to substitute? Rather than assuming that every single organism evolved from that first microbe, creationists would merely assume, as Gish stated... “Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn’t work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function.” What he is saying is that nature displays a purposeful and useful design. Whether by evolution or special creation, nature certainly gives the “illusion of design“ due to it’s quite apparent organization and continuity throughout. As we know, all organisms share similar attributes. So, IMHO, there are two interpretations... we may never know for sure which is correct, and although I understand your perspective as to how common descent can be a useful teaching tool or a “consistent theme” to help student understand the concept, I don’t comprehend how this interpretation is any better than the creationist interpretation as far as research is concerned. Both will end up with the same end results because both have been studying and classifying various organisms, and both understand their similarities.
Obviously, I’m not a biologist or anything even remotely close to it, so you’ll have to try to explain this a little further. If you have an evolutionist and a creationist working on this problem, why wouldn’t they both understand the same thing? Whether their interpretation is common descent or special creation and total acceptance of microevolution, why would the creationist not be able to figure this out? Research & classification of various species was being conducted long before Darwin’s theory, so why would it be impossible to keep classifying organisms to benefit future research if Darwin had never written his infamous book?
I still don’t understand why a creationist would have to do a two or three-step process. Due to previous research, he would know the same thing that the evolutionist does. You quoted me:
Your response:
Yes, presently I believe that if there were no fall and no original sin, their wouldn’t be a need for redemption, but there are other Christians who believe that regardless of whether the “creation myth” is correct or not, evil exists in the world, and Christ came to redeem us from the sins we commit due to our exposure to evil. Obviously, there are many interpretations here, and that is why I try to get theistic evolutionists to communicate their beliefs more often. But, I’ve found that they are a very quiet bunch in regard to their faith beliefs. I’ve believed different things in regard to my faith at various times in my life. At one point (college years) I pretty much believed that it didn’t matter what religion you were and that “God” was God to all within their own interpretations of what He is. But, after many years of reading and reflecting, I’ve come to the conclusion that all the evidence points to the God of the bible as being the legitimate creator. So, yes, my religious beliefs do affect how I view some of these issues, but unlike the AiG folks, I do not believe that we must reject everything that we don’t feel fits our interpretation of Genesis. Ya gotta follow the evidence wherever it leads, but you have to be careful in doing so because science is continuously correcting itself. I also am not the type of person who accepts Christianity on “faith” alone. I believe there have to be lines of evidence to follow in which to base your religious beliefs upon rather than blindly accepting something on faith. Dave, you have stated a few times that you have no interest in discussing religion. You also said that when you first started posting at my blog, you promised yourself you wouldn’t get into religious issues. In this forum you basically stated once that you weren’t well versed enough to get into religious discussions. And, when I mentioned a book you were reading and stated that I wasn’t surprised that you were reading a book about how religion “evolved”, you admitted that that was the only interest you had in religion (how it evolved). So, why would I take your word that the ToE is a fact beyond question when you don’t seem to know or care much about theology? Perhaps your “indoctrination” was as persuasive as mine was. Is it possible that YOU might perhaps be missing a piece of the puzzle? Here is the bottom line...at this point in time, I ~honestly~ don’t understand how the concept of common descent is of any more benefit to science than merely considering similarities between organisms, and when I consider all the other controversial issues surrounding the ToE, it just seems silly to consider the theory a “fact” rather than merely an interpretation of the data that ~may be~ correct. As far as my religious beliefs are concerned, why reject so much of the bible as “myth” due to a scientific theory which may never be supported with enough empirical evidence to make it a "fact"? I think I’ll wait for further evidence before I decide to reject my personal religious beliefs. |
| Date: 2007/06/08 08:46:19, Link 65.71.172.131 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Don't worry, Richard. I'd rather be hung by my toes while being read "Origins of Species" for the rest of my life than get anywhere near Lenny the Loon. I'm all yours... |
| Date: 2007/06/09 08:55:52, Link 65.71.172.203 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
[blushing] Um...Richard, you mailbox is full. I guess I sent one too many pictures... [/blushing] |
| Date: 2007/06/09 14:22:08, Link 65.71.172.203 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Arden, YOU ARE MEAN. You don't know Larry's situation so don't comment about it. I agree that he should read the flippin' books before he writes a review on them, but just because he didn't do so doesn't make him crazy. Why don't you start a blog and share some personal info. about yourself so we can psychoanalysis you, buddy. Or better yet, just start sharing right here...go for it. Tell us about yourself, Arden. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 14:33:34, Link 65.71.172.203 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Dave, I have a couple more questions about your last post....I think it's the power of prediction that I'm not quite understanding. I haven't put anything together yet, but I've been thinking about it while cleaning the house. My men are pigs, and I'm having a party next weekend, so I chased them off in order to get the pigpen cleaned up. Hopefully, I'll get a post together later tonight. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 14:42:16, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
I didn't say I know more about his situation than anyone else. But, I think it's nasty to make fun of him like that. I don't know anything about his brother or what he posted at Brayton's blog, but why the heck was his brother posting that kind of stuff on Brayton's blog in the first place? Try this attitude for a change...love your neighbor as yourself. Just a suggestion. You'll be a much happier person... Oh, and I've never said I'm an expert on anything...merely giving my point of view. God knows, I'm wrong about lots of stuff. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 14:45:01, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Not really...I think I saw him comment at Larry's blog once. I don't keep up with Larry's blog everyday. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 14:56:30, Link 65.71.172.203 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Okay, Arden, I scanned through it, but I'm more than a tad confused. Does Larry really have a brother named Dave (who he was impersonating), or was he making up the sibling part and impersonating the real Dave? Sooooo confusing. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 15:10:38, Link 65.71.172.203 |
| Author: Ftk |
| Yikes...just ran across this post. After reading the comments to that post, I'm sooo very glad that I moderate my blog. Wow. I have no idea what is going on in that conversation... |
| Date: 2007/06/09 15:28:22, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Yeah, Lenny, I do LOVE YOU. I just can't communicate with you...you make it impossible to do so. Love, FtK |
| Date: 2007/06/09 16:17:27, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Lenny, I don't remember ever saying anyone should. Do you? I haven't pushed my religious views here, nor have I stated that I have the ticket to religious truth. I have my opinions just like you have yours. I'd certainly be interested in your religious views if there is any possiblity that you can carry on a conversation without bringing in the pizza boy or snicker giggling your way through the conversation. And, one post is much easier to wade through than 5-10 posts in a row with a sentence in each. Love ya... |
| Date: 2007/06/09 16:55:24, Link 65.71.172.203 |
| Author: Ftk |
|
Stephen, I don't know if you've noticed, but to be quite honest with you, I haven't seen a whole lot of science being discussed here. Not that that is bad, it's just that EN&V, and UD aren't really places to socialize, talk sex, converse about favorite drinks or how often one gets a buzz, etc. I think some blogs and forums are trying to maintain a certain standard so that the conversations don't turn into bar fights. That is probably why they choose to moderate. Ya think DaveScot should start a UD "after the bar closes" forum? That might be interesting. Dave's probably the only one who has the personality to pull it off. I think he's probably able to brush off the constant insults. Someone who occassionally reads the threads over here mentioned to me just the other day that the "your skin is a lot thicker than mine". A lot of people don't have the fortitude to put up with they way some of you treat those who disagree with your stance about science and life in general. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 17:00:28, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
Here's the thing that is kind of weird about that. If I had a sibling who had any sort of disability or problem with mental stability, I would never jump into their blog and lay it all out publically. So, do you really think it was his brother? Would someone be that inconsiderate to their own brother? And, no, I haven't read about Larry's holocaust denial. I know of it because he's mentioned it on my blog, but I haven't taken the time to search his blog looking for the reasons why he feels this way. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 17:02:12, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||
Mercy....I don't love him THAT WAY! I'm deathly afraid of what he'd be like in the bedroom. He's frightening, but I love him anyway....from a distance. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 17:29:42, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||
Perhaps...but, there is no telling what is really going on in someone elses family life. And, do you really think that a PUBLIC BLOG where ANYONE can engage in the conversation is the most appropriate place to address your own brother? |
| Date: 2007/06/09 17:57:19, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Actually, keeping family matters out of the public domain seems to me to be the better choice for all concerned. I can't imagine that I would feel kindly toward my brother if he aired personal information publically. I don't think that is probably the way to "get one's brother back". And, no, I can't remember my family "sweeping that kind of thing under the rug". My family has helped me through many situations throughout my life...we were very close. But, they had the good sense to keep things that were personal to themselves rather than share them publically or with people who we didn't even know on a PUBLIC BLOG without consent. And as far as the science being discussed here, I can only comment on what I've seen here the last month or so. I wasn't around when AFDave posted. I think the only way you might have a chance at some good conversations would be when there are creationists or IDists posting, but you guys treat them like crap from the get go. Heck, Lenny's been trying to run me off since I got here. But, I can't comment much anyway because I'm NOT A SCIENTIST. It would be nice to find a forum where Darwinists and IDists can actually converse civilly. And, on a personal level, I think it'd be much more interesting if people from both sides got to know each other a bit more personally...makes the conversations more fun. They may even find out that those from the "other side" aren't as idiotic, delusional, evil, and dishonest as they might think. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 18:15:21, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||
Well, like you said, we don't know either one of them well enough to know what was best in this situation. I can only speak from my personal feelings, and even if my siblings angry or abusive toward me, I don't think I could ever bash them publically unless they were in agreement to take it public and ask for guidance or suggestions as to how to solve the issues. With everyone bashing Larry due to David taking it public, I can't imagine that did anything positive for the sibling relationship....but, maybe I'm wrong. Think about it...what if your brother or sister decided to post at UD and brought up something negative about you, and then everyone there jumped on the bandwagon and laid into you and poked fun of you for quite some time afterward. Can't imagine that would bring you closer to your sibling. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 18:27:57, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Yeah, I read the one Wesley wrote...printed it off and everything. But, I certainly don't have the expertise to debate him on it. And, as I've said before, I understand the position that it may be hard to distinguish exactly what is and what is not designed. The reason I argue that ID should be considered at the university level (and perhaps in high schools at some point) is that it does cover many scientific issues, and is certainly food for thought in regard to how much of evolution can be considered "fact". If scientists refuse to allow it into the science classroom, where I think it probably belongs, then it should at least be in the philosophy of science classes...and be taught by a design proponent. Or, perhaps it could be taught by both a person who supports design and one who doesn't. I just think it should be addressed in some reasonable fashion. Dave was also kind enough to send me a biology textbook which at first I was pissed about because he obviously thinks I don't know the first thing about biology. But, after thinking about it for a while, he made me realize that it has been about 20 years since I took college biology, so an updated textbook might be interesting to peruse. And, I've been reading that when I can find a spare second and enjoying it. So, yeah, I think I'm taking what you guys share seriously. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 18:36:14, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||
[quote=carlsonjok,June 09 2007,18:23][/quote]
Why would he ask that of a hostile group of commentors? I suppose perhaps he wasn't aware that Larry had been the brunt of their jokes? I mean who would do that? I could never do that to my sister or brother. I can't imagine anyone from that blog was going to befriend Larry or try to find a way to help him. Did you? Did any of you? |
| Date: 2007/06/09 18:44:15, Link 65.71.172.203 | ||
| Author: Ftk | ||
Okey, dokey, Lenny. I'll shut the fuck up about it and go do some laundry. I won't say another word until I post my questions for Dave. Love you...lots. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 23:44:31, Link 65.71.172.87 |
| Author: Ftk |
| I've found people using either "FtK" or "Reasonable Kansans" in at least 4 different blogs. I've got a feeling that the those using my name are from the Emanuel Goldstein clan of commentors, because Josh (Thoughts from Kansas) was able to check IP addresses once, and if I remember right, the IP address was the same as one of the Emmanual/Blair/JC/etc. reincarnations. |
| Date: 2007/06/10 00:05:19, Link 65.71.172.87 | ||||||||||||
| Author: Ftk | ||||||||||||
|
Okay, Dave, I’ve been “thinking” again...frightening, I know. Anywhoo... As I said earlier, I think it’s the importance of prediction that I’m probably not fully comprehending. Let me try again with comments and questions to your last few posts. Warning: This post is a seriously jumbled mess because I addressed your two previous posts point by point. I didn’t go back and try to make it more organized so it’s very repetitive in some areas, but maybe that’s not a bad thing. If I wasn’t clear the first time, maybe my second attempt will be more understandable. ==========================
Perhaps I should have used a phrase like living within the entire biosphere or world as a whole rather than the word “environment“. I didn’t mean individual environments. BTW, as far as I know, the bible didn’t relay any “notion” about environmental constants. It’s not a science textbook.
I would have thought just the opposite (if you note my corrected meaning of the word environment)...it would seem to me that Gish would predict them to be similar because of his statement in regard to the observation that so much of nature obviously depends on other parts of nature for their livelihood. Due to that observation, one would certainly predict massive similarities throughout much of nature. It seems to me it’s always been obvious that we share common characteristics with other other organisms. Linneaus started classifying these similarities before Darwin hit the scene, and I find it hard to believe that we wouldn’t be exactly where we are today unless we had rejected common design for common descent. The notion of common descent might have possibly helped push us more urgently toward further exploration of organisms at one point in order to try to confirm the concept, but there is no reason to believe that a creationist wouldn’t be able to “do science” due to their belief that similarities are due to common design rather than common descent.
Okay, so since we assume that, due to common descent, everything evolved from that first organism, then we predict that there are similarities between all organisms. But, an evolutionist can’t just look at something and make a prediction as to where it should be classified without thoroughly examining it. So, what good is the concept of common descent other than to say that, “hey, there will be similarities of some sort between these organisms because we know that everything evolved from that first microbe. So, let’s dig into this sucker and figure out how to classify it with other organisms that have the closest similarities to this creature“. Fr’instance, the dolphin/fish example. We can’t know how to classify these creatures until we’ve thoroughly examined them and conducted further experiments in order to place them in reasonable categories for future research, can we? Both a creationist and an evolutionist would go through this process, so how is it that the evolutionist is ahead of the game in determining that they should not be categorized together? I’m not being a prick here, I still just don’t understand, and I think I might be missing something important.
Lost...seriously. I don’t understand why I would have to read the mind of a supernatural being in order to observe, examine, and classify various organisms accordingly to their similar attributes. Let’s take the dolphin/fish example again. Say I just discovered both and don’t know squat about either except that they have some similar features and live within the same environment. How would an evolutionist know to classify one as a vertebrate, and one as a mammal, without further investigation? They can’t predict anything different than what a creationist would predict until they do the work and then classify it with those creatures similar to each, can they? So, either way, our outcome is the same, isn’t it? Same with the bacteria living in the soil compared to the bacteria living in hydrothermal vents...even though they both live in different environments, I don’t understand why one could only conclude that they are similar due to common descent rather than common design.
But, Dave, there is no reason why they wouldn’t get the same answers. As I’ve said many times, classifying these similarities which would lead to future scientific breakthroughs doesn’t depend upon believing that everything evolved from that first microbe. It’s an interesting concept, but I just don’t comprehend why similarities must be the product of common descent.
Well, I guess that a creationist would dig in and investiga |
