AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: lcd

form_srcid: lcd

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.23.2.137

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: lcd

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 'lcd%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/06/30 16:25:56, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Quidam @ June 17 2008,15:21)
How about this stretched cardigan?

Childish.

But what can one expect from a bunch of atheists and God deniers?

Date: 2008/06/30 16:35:09, Link
Author: lcd
I can't believe that people would be so happy to see Dr. Hovind in jail.  After all he was put there by that illegal government instytution the IRS.  An ilegal entitity is ever their were one.

As for Dr. Hovinds' state of mind, what does what expect to see from a normally human person, a good man, a church going God-fearing man who is persecuted by the very forses that keep God out of schools?

Date: 2008/06/30 16:37:58, Link
Author: lcd
How can one be Christian and believe in Evolution too?

Somethings don't go together.  NASCAR and Ballay, Real Science and Evolution.

Date: 2008/06/30 20:05:49, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 30 2008,16:46)
Quote (lcd @ June 30 2008,16:35)
I can't believe that people would be so happy to see Dr. Hovind in jail.  After all he was put there by that illegal government instytution the IRS.  An ilegal entitity is ever their were one.

As for Dr. Hovinds' state of mind, what does what expect to see from a normally human person, a good man, a church going God-fearing man who is persecuted by the very forses that keep God out of schools?

I give your parody 7/10.

What parody?

What do you mean 7/10?

Date: 2008/06/30 20:11:54, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Chayanov @ June 30 2008,17:05)
Needs more misspelled words and a lot more caps. Random font and color changes wouldn't hurt, either.

Hey, even I know ALL CAPS is rude.  As for my spelling, well I guess it's better to shoot the messenger when you can't handle the message.

I'm trying to be polite here.  You guys are making it hard to have a real discussion.  And yes Dr. Hovind has shown the cowardise of Evolution lackeys and their masters.  I noticed that noone yet has agreed to debate Dr. Hovind.

While I've only been on here a little while, I've seen that professor from Florida, Joe Meart, and his half hearten attempt.  He won't agree to reasonable terms so he's, as we say it, "are blowing smoke".

One thing, why is "random caps" and "color changes" something to look for?

Date: 2008/06/30 20:12:37, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (American Saddlebred @ June 30 2008,17:39)
What, are you all scare of the TRUTH?  [B]DR.[/] Kent Hovind proves that evolution is IMPOSSIBLE and it is a RELIGON that send you to HELL.  That really hot place I cant wait to see you all go to so I can LAUGH at your.  Do YOU think the earth can really be BILLIONS of years old?  You werent there to see it!  GOD creatard me.  Not some MONKEYS AND GOO.  You need to OPEN your eyes to the TRUTH.

I will PRAY for you.


....better?

Your mocking me aren't you?

Date: 2008/06/30 20:34:55, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 30 2008,20:16)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ June 30 2008,15:39)
What, are you all scare of the TRUTH?  [B]DR.[/] Kent Hovind proves that evolution is IMPOSSIBLE and it is a RELIGON that send you to HELL.  That really hot place I cant wait to see you all go to so I can LAUGH at your.  Do YOU think the earth can really be BILLIONS of years old?  You werent there to see it!  GOD creatard me.  Not some MONKEYS AND GOO.  You need to OPEN your eyes to the TRUTH.

I will PRAY for you.


....better?

You have a gift. Use it for good instead of evil.

lcd could learn from you, hint hint.


(PS: Mix up 'there', 'their' and 'they're' more.)

Learn what?  I don't understand what you're getting at.

As for telling people to purposely misspell words, I'll do my best to stop.  I'll run this through Word and so there will be no spelling errors.

As for what Saddlebred wrote, that is just wrong.  The worst part is I doubt if they even believe what they wrote.  Yeah, the great Evolutionists.  I guess mocking is what they are all about.

But I will pray for you all.

Date: 2008/06/30 21:10:54, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 30 2008,20:39)
Quote (lcd @ June 30 2008,21:34)
The worst part is I doubt if they even believe what they wrote.  

Can't slip nuthin' by you, huh?

I'm guessing lame imitation.  Dr. GH is right, we can do much better.

"Lame imitation"?

"We can do much better"?

Oh, I get it.  You can do a parody of what you believe people like me who know and believe in God's word as the way it was, is and will be, better?  So you guys make up "strawmen" to knock down and pretend to be believers?

Isn't that a lot like saying that when you guys run low on women, do a few of you pretend to be ladies?  Would that be something you guys take turns at?

I guess that to be a "better creationist", in your guys opinions, means that I have to act like saddlebags there and be a "returd" or whatever the name you want to use?

So in your language:  Ah yes, the brain power of the evolutionist continues to impress me, not.

I was told about this place, actually WWW.TALKORIGINS.ORG from our VBS at the Church last week.  It ran from the 22nd to the 26th.  I prefer the concise and clear answers given by the good people at Trueorigins, but I digress.  There's a lot to be learned at VBS.  I'd invite you all to try it at a Church of your choice.  Although I will say it should be at a Bible believing Church.

See I now know why you guys are upset.  We have answers.  We have Christ.  Now, I'm not going to get all upset and, I mean I'll try to do my best, because we were taught to feel sorry for you.

Evolution is materialism at it's worst, and that's a fact.  If Evolution were true, then we wouldn't be here.  Yes, that is a fact.  Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  After all, look at Stalin, Mao and other atheists who supported evolution.  Granted it may not be what you guys now have put on the mantle of your altar of science now, evolution can never be disproved as it is always shifting the goal posts, but they were atheists and as atheists they sure as heck didn't believe in Creation now did they?

Date: 2008/06/30 21:14:48, Link
Author: lcd
Happy Birthday Steve.

Date: 2008/07/01 06:32:06, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 30 2008,21:52)
I just noticed that lcd's grammar and spelling improved a lot during his time here. Funny, that.

Yup,


As I was being mocked for poor spelling, I never was very good at it, I decided to run my posts in Word first.  A bunch of helpful stuff there.  I especially like the stuff where it shows you spelled the word right but it's the wrong word.

Like write and right, their and there.

As for my first attempt on this board, I was tired and wrote quickly.  I've been taking my time to be as "edumacated" as the rest of you.

Date: 2008/07/01 06:55:11, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 30 2008,22:23)
I'm not buying that Vacation Bible School points people to the TOA.

Most antievolution sites can't muster the gumption to link to the TOA or any other mainstream science sources.

Actually that was addressed during the class.  For too long, the internet had been used to lie about many things.  One of those things is the so called "overwhelming proof" of evolution.  Well I don't see and be honest, neither do you.

Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

What is most interesting sir, and your name did come up if that makes you feel special, was the amount of money spent on trying to prove evolution.  Why is that sir?  If you think it's already true, then why do you guys feel the need to keep on trying to prove it?

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

Date: 2008/07/01 07:13:37, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,06:35)
Quote
Isn't that a lot like saying that when you guys run low on women, do a few of you pretend to be ladies?


actually, that's not why.  in tarden's case it has nothing to do with how many other women there are.

but anyway i can do a better impression than that lcd.  don't make me pull out my bibble.

Please do pull out your Bible.  Perhaps you'll learn the truth of it.

But as many have said before ID is not religious.  It is being backed up with fact and proof.

If you want to pull out your Bible please do.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on God's Word.

Date: 2008/07/01 07:29:03, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 24 2008,07:59)
Paul is having some identity issues and I heard Exodus was involved.  Or it could be that he is just a regular old dishonest tard-peddler and he has found some school children to molest with stupid vacuous ideas.

So you disagree with this Paul person so therefore he's a child molester?

Wow, no wonder you shout out "God did it", which is of course the ultimate cause and we're now truly seeing how through science God's plans are unfolding, when you come across something you don't understand.

And I keep on hearing they say Creationists only do that.  What is this "projection thing" again?

Date: 2008/07/01 07:35:54, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (dogdidit @ June 30 2008,20:30)
"Ballay"? WTF?

(ballay ballay ballay...)

Oh, BALLAY!!!! Duh.

And yet he spells "NASCAR" correctly. Go figure.

Yes, it's "Ballet".  As I said, I'll be running this thing through a spell checker so that doesn't happen.

As for NASCAR, well, I see it everyday.  Ballet, never.

Date: 2008/07/01 07:58:56, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,07:50)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:29)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 24 2008,07:59)
Paul is having some identity issues and I heard Exodus was involved.  Or it could be that he is just a regular old dishonest tard-peddler and he has found some school children to molest with stupid vacuous ideas.

So you disagree with this Paul person so therefore he's a child molester?

Wow, no wonder you shout out "God did it", which is of course the ultimate cause and we're now truly seeing how through science God's plans are unfolding, when you come across something you don't understand.

And I keep on hearing they say Creationists only do that.  What is this "projection thing" again?

Reading comprehension, syntax, you're doing it wrong.

Oh, I see.  To you all creationists are ignorant morons and or buffoons.  That's a real neat trick you've got going.  See, I am educated.  See I'm an engineer.  While I can't spell my way out of a paper bag, I can design it for you.

Again though, you disagree with Paul so you'll slander him.  Is that a fair statement.

Date: 2008/07/01 08:42:35, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:38)
Quote (Louis @ July 01 2008,08:27)
EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

Yes, that is what the the initials stand for.

As I see many others have initials for their names on this bored, I thought I'd do the same.  The only question was which initials.

I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Obviously I was wrong.

Date: 2008/07/01 08:43:46, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Louis @ July 01 2008,08:27)
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! When did mocking liars/suckers/morons (delete as applicable) and IDCIsts...but I repeat myself....become a BAD thing?

Three strikes and out. Discuss sensibly once...discuss sensibly twice...make last ditch attempt at sensible discussion......MOCK!

Lcd seems to have missed the part where IDCists and their ancestors keep trying to force religious dogma into schools claiming it (falsely) to be science. Maybe THAT'S why people have to deal with them occasionally, no matter how unpleasant it might be.

Louis

EDIT: Unless of course lcd is a loki or a sock. Kids4truth? Come onnnnnnnn.

Try here:

http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp

Date: 2008/07/01 09:00:38, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:53)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,08:38)

lcd?  Lowest Common Denominator? More likely than not.

I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Obviously I was wrong.

Au contraire. We are having good natured fun.  And we aren't treating you as less than human.  We are treating you as less than sincere.

Don't really know what to do about that so I won't worry about.

Date: 2008/07/01 09:06:11, Link
Author: lcd
oldmanintheskydidntdoit,


Since you've asked so nicely (was "coward" really needed?), here's some of the issues I've seen with evolution:

1:  It hasn't been seen.  Yes, I've read the Lemski debate over at Conservapedia and the comments made here, still the issue remains.  The E. coli in the experiment can now eat the stuff it's not supposed to eat.  But it is still E. Coli, right?  You've heard of Baraminolgy, right?  Even in full Creationists circles, kinds are well known.

2:  Where did the life come from to even evolve?

That is what the predictive power of ID can't be over looked.  ID can explain those things far better than anything I've ever seen evolution even try.

Date: 2008/07/01 09:08:45, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,09:02)
No response to my responses to your points?

Typical creationist tactic I suppose, pretend the difficult questions are not there.

Have you been learning from FTK LCD?

I start from th bottom of the page and work up.

Also, I was taking time in gather what I thought were two good questions to start off with.

Sorry if my time table is not in sync with yours.  I'll worry about that another time.

Date: 2008/07/01 09:19:46, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,09:12)
I'm disappointed.  You forgot:

3. No transitional fossils.

4. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Plus, on your point one, you forgot that no one has seen a half-cat, half dog.

#3 I think has merit, but I was really looking for one or two items so we can really dig into those.

As for #4, well, I hate to break it to my fellow Creationists and IDers but the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems.  While the Sun-Earth System can be considered a closed system, the Earth is not.  The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun, which follows the 2nd Law incredibly well, provides the energy needed.

The half cat-dog thing, well, there are dog kinds and cat kinds.  The two aren't the same.

No I can't defend, nor will I, the bad science that has come from some of the more intense believers in God's Word.  Yes, some of them do tend to say things without thinking it through.

Date: 2008/07/01 09:25:48, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,09:13)
As you have now responded, I apologize and retract that comment.

Thank you.

I will get to these, but right now, I have to get to the work site.  The new additions are being finished and I'm supposed to be there.

Date: 2008/07/01 10:02:30, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,09:01)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:42)
I was told correctly that those who believe ID is good science and in Creationism, like myself, are treated like dirt and less than human, I choose it so you guys can have what I thought would be good natured fun.

Would you like to talk about Walt Brown and his Jellyfish theory?

I'd love to hear your side of the story.

Go here for the story so far.

Do you, as a creationist, find Walt's story credible?

Site's not ready until 1:00pm.  Imagine that.

I'm sure Dr. Brown studied long and hard, as I'm sure even Evolutionist scientists say they do, to come to the conclusions he did.  I'll have to read up more on what that's all about.

As for FTK, I think you were just getting them riled up.  To be honest, when I get mad as I'm sure many people do, I'm not always at my best.

I'll hve to read more before I give an opinion.

Date: 2008/07/01 10:15:08, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Nerull @ July 01 2008,09:31)
You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?

Nerull?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerull

I take it you play DnD.  How do you like 4.0?  I like 3.5 much better.

Not much better?  Okay.

Evolution works by animals changing.  New species being made (and you've seen this when?) from old ones.  The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.

Transitional Fossil?  Where?

Oh, so no "Poof".  Well, in the class I was at, we learned about "Punctuated Equilibrium".  Wow.  There's a novel approach.  Things happen so fast that there are no fossils and this is from an evolutionist (rest his soul and may God forgive him and his atheism)!  So Evolution doesn't need Transitional Fossils now!  Again, where are these "transitional fossils"?

Well the E. Coli changed but it's still E. Coli!  So there's no evolution.  They may have had a trait come in from being dormant but how is that evolution when the culture is still E Coli?

The Horse Cart to a Car.  good analogy.  At each point in the design was there intelligence doing the changes.  Which is what ID is all about.

The predictive power of ID is powerful as it is simple:

When systems become so complex that one parts falls away, it stops working so how does it get to be in the first place?  The answer, "It was designed that way".

Date: 2008/07/01 10:16:53, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,10:06)
Quote
I'll hve to read more before I give an opinion.


why let being uninformed stop you?  it doesn't stop the rest of the creationists.

Why?  I have no desire to be like you.

:D

Date: 2008/07/01 10:24:50, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2008,08:29)
Quote

To you all creationists are ignorant morons and or buffoons.


Religiously motivated antievolutionists are often sincere but deluded. Some are quite bright in some field of endeavor, usually far removed from the biological sciences.

There is, however, little room to excuse the writers of "Explore Evolution" from its many faults.

So some beliefs, like creation, is deluded while other beliefs, like evolution, is "from learning and studying"?  Who makes those determinations?

As for biology, I think engineering is very useful for ID and ID based biology.  As an Engineer, we understand the complexity of systems and can find the designs in the structures.

Date: 2008/07/01 10:30:20, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2008,10:17)
At the next IDC trial involving the use of "The Design of Life" by some deluded teacher, I look forward to Dembski being called by the plaintiffs as a hostile witness.

Oh, and Wells, too.

Does "deluded teacher" mean to you when applied to ID as someone who was, "pressured to teach something they feel is very wrong, got fired and they are now suing a hostile work environment"?

Date: 2008/07/01 11:25:56, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,11:09)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:55)
I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

While your track record of ignoring questions addressed to you is pretty much what we expected, it's probably best for your sake if you didn't spend too much time on this idea of other people "believing things they haven't seen".

I get asked a lot of questions.  I also am trying to do my job.  I will answer what I can to the best of my ability.

So forgive me if I can't always meet your timetable.

Date: 2008/07/01 12:41:11, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,11:53)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:32)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 30 2008,21:52)
I just noticed that lcd's grammar and spelling improved a lot during his time here. Funny, that.

Yup,

As I was being mocked for poor spelling, I never was very good at it, I decided to run my posts in Word first.  A bunch of helpful stuff there.  I especially like the stuff where it shows you spelled the word right but it's the wrong word.

Like write and right, their and there.

It seems to have done wonders for your grammar and sentence structure, too.

Glad you noticed.  I will admit in being tired, sore and a bit when I was just typing too quickly.  So as not to offend you anymore and make you think that I'm flip flopping, I won't post unless I think its really needed when I'm tired.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:03:26, Link
Author: lcd
To all, especially oldmanintheskydidntdoit


What would you take as evidence?  I can hear all of you now, "Another ID dodge".  This is not the case.  More than a few other Creationists and IDists may have tried, it seems too many times they get ridiculed or shouted down.

So what would you people take?  Things such as Dembski's Design Filter can be used, although it may need to be perfected.  Is that a problem?  Why is Evolution allowed to change stripes, "Punctuated Equilibrium", no wait, "Gradualism", oh that don't work, back to "Uniformism"?  It seems as those ID Theories, some of which may be still being built upon, doesn't get the same respect.

When it comes to Information contained in DNA, it is obvious it exists.  Without that Information, there would be no inherited traits.  A Palm Tree in such a situation can produce seeds that grow an Elm.  Without information in DNA, Monkeys could really give birth to humans and an E. Coli can divide and instead of two E Coli cells, you have an embryonic cat on one side and a dog on the other.

So from that we know there is information contained in the DNA.

Information, can and does get lost.  A strand of DNA doesn't replicate correctly and the sites in the genes that tells a cell to stop dividing gets lost.  So now you have a cancer cell.  The loss of that information prevents it from no longer being able to stop multiplying.  Loss of info must be a bad thing.

So how does one measure the information in DNA?  Good question and  I don't rightly know.  I guess it would take time and money.  From the other thread, one scientist was given 20 years to try and change E. Coli into something else.  All he was able to do was change what they eat.  Is that a change or loss of information?  I'd say loss as it seems to state that the "new strain" of E. Coli doesn't do as well when there's both forms of nutrition for all the E. Coli to consume.

I stated previously about the amount of money given to do dogmatic Evolutionary Science.  Why don't we try giving ARN or DI 20 years and lots of taxpayer money to come up with something in 20 years?

Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?

Date: 2008/07/01 13:08:12, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,12:34)
To add this to the pile of questions LCD won't adequately answer:

   
Quote
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  


There are millions of Christians who accept evolution. Therefore your dichotomy of "the opposite of Christian is Darwinist" is bogus.

Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

And if ID has nothing to do with religion, why do no nonreligious people accept it?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

Real Christians follow God's Word and believe it as such.  If you're going to say, "Well lot's of Christians feel that Evolution and the Bible can both exist", obviously aren't.

I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?

Date: 2008/07/01 13:16:43, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Gunthernacus @ July 01 2008,12:19)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:55)
Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

[snip]

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

This is the first time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  You did it and you tied it to Creationism.

   
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:13)
But as many have said before ID is not religious.

This is the second time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  And, again, you did it.  Is this the talking point you've wanted to get to all along?  Anyway, before these comments you wrote:

   
Quote (lcd @ June 30 2008,22:10)
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  After all, look at Stalin, Mao and other atheists who supported evolution.  Granted it may not be what you guys now have put on the mantle of your altar of science now, evolution can never be disproved as it is always shifting the goal posts, but they were atheists and as atheists they sure as heck didn't believe in Creation now did they?

I don't agree with you, but I'll set that aside for the moment.  In your opinion, can atheists believe in ID?  You say that evolution is "the idea that we have no meaning" and that it "must be defeated".  Defeated by what?  Non-religious ID?  Does non-religious ID offer "the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth"?  What meaning does ID offer for we humans or life in general - and how does ID come to that conclusion?

Here's a shock for you.

I have no problem confirming that ID is part of Creationism.  What I don't agree with though is that without the Bible, ID would fall apart.

I feel just the opposite.  Imagine a world where God unknown and Jesus hadn't saved anyone.  A truly terrible place.  I could see real scientists looking for better ways to kill other people for their evil governments and looking into bio warfare.

The goal is to "build a better bug".  The scientists start and some of them notice the unmistakable signs of design in these microbes.  Their conclusion is that someone already designed them.  Perhaps that is what can help them discover God and all of His Glory.

So ID can lead people back to God and His Word as well as His Word leading people to ID and His Creation.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:21:07, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,12:34)
Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

For these questions:

#1:  Many of them are well meaning but confused.  I'm sure many feel that to be accepted they must conform to some notion of what it means to be sophisticated.

#2:  Using Hitler, I was taught, is wrong to lump him with evolution.  Hitler wasn't an atheist.  He was some kind of Pagan/New Age/Catholic Cult who tried to change religion into his own ideals.  Besides there's that thing that when one starts comparing others to Nazis or Hitler, they automatically lose.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:30:23, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,13:22)
It's not so obvious to millions of people, including Christians.

So Christians who accept evolution aren't REAL Christians? Is that the statement you're signing on to?

Who gets to pick? You?

As you know, the Vatican has come out in support of evolution. Are Catholics not 'real Christians'?

Michael Behe has conceded common descent. Is he not a 'real Christian'?

   
Quote
I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?


Do you keep kosher?

For other Christians, I offer up only what I read in the Bible.

I don't judge them so I won't say what happens to them.  That is up to God.

As far as Kosher, I am not a full on vegetarian, I eat fish though no shell fish, shrimp, etc., and I'm lactose intolerant.  So no "meat with milk" for me.  So yes, I think I do.

Trust me we've had many "open and intense discussions" at church about following God's Laws.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:36:28, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (dogdidit @ July 01 2008,13:27)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:08)
There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

I think RtH gets credit here for calling "no true Scotsman". Out of curiosity, what was the pot up to?

Well, if it looks like a flower, smells like a flower and attracts bees, if would be a difficult if not impossible thing to call it a duck, right?

But I think I am a real Christian so I guess I put myself in that boat.  Then again so do many others.  The real test is when those who claim actually do what is needed.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:41:44, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Assassinator @ July 01 2008,13:34)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:21)
What would you take as evidence?

Emperical data, facts. Like with all forms of science, so where are they when it's about ID or Creationism?
 
Quote
So what would you people take?  Things such as Dembski's Design Filter can be used, although it may need to be perfected.  Is that a problem?  Why is Evolution allowed to change stripes, "Punctuated Equilibrium", no wait, "Gradualism", oh that don't work, back to "Uniformism"?  It seems as those ID Theories, some of which may be still being built upon, doesn't get the same respect.

Evolution is allowed to "change stripes" because that's the way science works. Science keeps correcting itself, that's the power of science. If something is wrong, it will change.
O and by the way, Dembski's "Design filter" or commonly known as the Explanatory Filter (if that's not the one you mean, correct me) if utterly useless. To save me a lot of typing, read this nice little article from our own Wesley Elsberry: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
 
Quote
Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?

Money can be spend on science. So either start conducting it, or stop moaning. And you sir, are only talking about (bad?) theology, and not science.

So "science can change stripes as that what science does it's self correcting".

Yet when Creationism goes to show that it is a science, witness ID, it's "snake oil", "lies" and worse.

Let me see if I can get this straight.  What you and your heroes do is wholesome, self-correcting and right.

What ID scientists do is lie, cover up and take money from unsuspecting dupes like myself.  What that makes me, in your opinion then is a sucker.

Do I smell a hypocrite here?

Date: 2008/07/01 13:51:04, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (JohnW @ July 01 2008,13:34)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,11:08)
There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

I have a suggestion, lcd.  As you appear to have nothing we haven't seen before, and your cartoonish misunderstandings of evolution can better be dealt with elsewhere (talkorigins, for example), why not find a site where some of these "millions of people who THINK they are Christian" hang out, and show them the error of their ways?  I'm sure there will be great excitement when they find the one true arbiter of real Christianity in their midst.  They'll be lining up to thank you.

Well JW,


It seems that you and your friends are trotting out the same "ill-thought and oft-quoted" tired explanations of circular logic yourself.  Yet you have the gall to call me on it.

Wow.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:51:58, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,13:48)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:08)
There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

Real Christians follow God's Word and believe it as such.  If you're going to say, "Well lot's of Christians feel that Evolution and the Bible can both exist", obviously aren't.

I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?


 
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:30)
For other Christians, I offer up only what I read in the Bible.

I don't judge them so I won't say what happens to them.  That is up to God.

As far as Kosher, I am not a full on vegetarian, I eat fish though no shell fish, shrimp, etc., and I'm lactose intolerant.  So no "meat with milk" for me.  So yes, I think I do.

Trust me we've had many "open and intense discussions" at church about following God's Laws.


 
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:41)
Do I smell a hypocrite here?


Well I certainly do.

Anyone else?

Funny you can as most people can't smell what's under their own nose.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:52:52, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,13:49)

Glad to see you're coming to terms with what you've been spraying across the internet for what, years now?

Date: 2008/07/01 13:54:29, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2008,13:49)
Quote

what evidence you have for Mao's support of Darwinism?


That ought to be interesting, since in 1958 Mao presided over China, and China adopted Comrade Academician Trofim D. Lysenko's ideas about agriculture wholesale. China had been having grain surpluses when using agriculture informed by the evolutionary science of the West; once Lysenko's policies were followed in China, they had grain shortfalls such that between 20 and 40 million people died in the resulting famine.

Obviously Mao was doing the best he could for Darwinian Science which was "cull the weak".

Date: 2008/07/01 13:57:28, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,13:50)
The addition of the blatant hypocrisy is getting it a little closer to realistic, though.

Yes, this is what we were told exactly what would happen if one were to engage with Evolutionists.

You have faith in Evolution.

I have faith in God.

You say the same things over and over, until such time it's been shown to be a lie then you quickly change your tune like nothing ever happened.

ID has changed over the years to show the science behind God's Word and in His Word.

Yet I'm the hypocrite?  Wow.

Date: 2008/07/01 14:15:30, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,14:11)
For the record, "I know you are, but what am I?" usually quits working after 5th grade.

Well Arden, what's to say.

You may not think you guys are doing not just the exact thing but claiming I'm the only one who is doing it is wrong.

The reason why you guys seem to be getting away with it is that there are far more of you then there are of just me.

Date: 2008/07/01 14:18:11, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (JohnW @ July 01 2008,14:01)
If it's an "explanation of circular logic" you're looking for, here's one.  You might also want to do a google search for remedial English classes.

Once you've learned how to translate what you want to say into strings of words, feel free to try again.

Heh JW, love your sense of humor.

I think you need to complete your courses before you go and offer them up to others though.

Just a thought, I know it's hard for you to do but I bet if you try hard enough, one might actually slip in there despite your best efforts to go through life "blinded by (your idea of) science"!

Date: 2008/07/01 14:20:14, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,14:16)
So anyone who kills lots of people is a 'Darwinist'?

Sure you wanna go with that answer?

Of course not as that would be a blanket statement and ill -advised.  But in Mao's case, his following of some "Scientific Principles" I think it fits.

Date: 2008/07/01 14:22:44, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,14:18)
Persecution claims. Check.

If your logic made any sense, you'd be able to answer questions all by your lonesome. It isn't happening.

If you guys would listen, I just might.  As I am fending off so many of you and the questions are coming fast and furious, and smack me down if I don't answer someone's question or one they want to see answered quickly, I may not be able to get to them all.

But I must be going for a while.  Got to get back to the job site.

From now on, I'll only answer those who are at least trying some civility.  It will help me maintain my composure.

Date: 2008/07/02 08:19:24, Link
Author: lcd
I was going to respond more on this thread, but why bother?

What I've been told about Pro-Evolutionist Boards is partially correct.  The truth it is much worse.

Assassinator, thank you for at least trying to be civil.  I appreciate that.  As for most of the rest you, have fun.  Bask in the glow of having to successfully shouted down any possible discussion.  Your insults and attitude really show how bankrupt th belief in Evolution really is.  You can't show anything so you demand things that you yourselves don't produce.

Little things like evidence and facts.

Speaking of facts, for the evolutionists who wanted me to use incorrect and other things that are just wrong, that shows how deep you'll go to lie.  So what else do you lie about here?  How much "Lying for Darwin" do you do?

Hitler was NOT an atheist.  He didn't follow God to be sure but not following God and being an atheist are two different things.  As for why Mao jailed and killed "Darwinists", well he was a Communist dictator.  He used whatever he wanted to control China and terror was one.  Perhaps he jailed and killed Darwinists because even though they may have been liberal ivory tower types, maybe they were only fellow travellers and "not true communists".

When it comes to condemning others who feel they are Christian but they pick and choose which of God's laws they adhere to, I said too much.  It is not my job to judge them and for that I am sorry that I did.  I wouldn't do what they do and I will council them on what I believe, but in the end God has given them free will to do as they wish.  It is my belief that the road to Heaven is through His Son Jesus and that road is narrow.

No, I am not leaving for good.  I am taking a break.  It seems I posted too much for some people and well, I am not happy with them either.  The best is to back off, cool down and come back later.

Besides, it's the 4th of July weekend coming up and who has such a poor life that they sit at the computer when there's so much to do?

I'll be at the beach starting tomorrow afternoon so have a nice 4th people.

Date: 2008/07/03 16:34:10, Link
Author: lcd
Hey guys,


Waiting for the wife and kids to get back.  So I decided to check out what is going on here.

Hmmm, interesting (I've already read the well thought out, very professional and good natured blasting directed at me on the Dr. Hovind thread) that these people and the posters here say that those that are really pro-science, those who want to actually teach all the things in science, such as ID, are the ones who whine and claim persecution.

I guess it all depends on whose doing the whining what you think of them.

As for lawsuits, I'm sure the good people at the Discovery Institute (OBTW, I think the name people around here give it, the "Disco Tute" is funny) are getting ready to do more lawsuits to get the "Evolution Uber Alles"* thrown out and let science back into the classroom.

*Yes my friend, this one's for you.

Date: 2008/07/03 16:55:35, Link
Author: lcd
Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

Don't bait those that are trying to just get me mad.

Check

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA.  I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA?  I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement.  After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right?  So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1:  My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2:  IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA.  These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3:  The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

Date: 2008/07/06 12:25:10, Link
Author: lcd
Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.

Date: 2008/07/06 12:25:10, Link
Author: lcd
Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.

Date: 2008/07/06 13:09:55, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?

No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

Date: 2008/07/06 13:09:55, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?

No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

Date: 2008/07/07 06:52:04, Link
Author: lcd
Um,


So Guts is the real deal from the TT board?  That is not a good thing.

I am not happy to say that I can't find much help in ID sites about the definition of Information as it applies to genetic sequences.  That part seems to need a lot of work.

Date: 2008/07/07 06:52:04, Link
Author: lcd
Um,


So Guts is the real deal from the TT board?  That is not a good thing.

I am not happy to say that I can't find much help in ID sites about the definition of Information as it applies to genetic sequences.  That part seems to need a lot of work.

Date: 2008/07/07 10:28:31, Link
Author: lcd
To put your minds at ease, I am not the Ghost of Parly(?).

But to get back to the subject at hand.

From reading, thanks for all of those links, I've come to the conclusion that ID for Evolutionary Scientists would be placed under the heading of "Postulate".  That is it is a proposal on how something works.

The next step is "Hypothesis", which the Postulate is used to make predictions.

The next step is to actually test the Hypothesis and if the predictions it makes turn out to be real and observed, the Hypothesis becomes a "Theory".

"Proofs" can only be applied to math theories as when one puts down 2+2=4, it will always remain the same.

I guess right now my best is an untested Hypothesis, and even then I think it would be rather thin.  I'll need to work on it more.  But hey, who was it that took 20 years in their last lab experiment?  Also, I doubt if it took Newton just a few days or weeks to come up with Calculus.  No, I have no illusions I am as smart as Newton.  But then again I don't believe I'm as much of a miserable individual either.

The ID Hypothesis is that the Information contained in the Genetic Code can be found and measured.  The thing is that the Information is not linear.

Information contain in a Strand of DNA is not continuous.  Parts of the DNA affect other parts in ways we may not know yet.

Got to get back to work.  I hope I'll find Scientists who do this for a living looking into this.  Until later.

Date: 2008/07/09 11:56:39, Link
Author: lcd
How is Ftk supposed to actually respond to real questions when so many of you are only out to be very vindictive, call names or speculate on private matters with them?

Very sad actually.

Date: 2008/07/09 12:19:01, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,12:01)
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,11:56)
How is Ftk supposed to actually respond to real questions when so many of you are only out to be very vindictive, call names or speculate on private matters with them?

Very sad actually.

lcd, David Heddle's blog may contain the answer to your question.

Um, that is I hope an isolated incident.

For Ftk, I don't have the answers, yet.  While I haven't been here on these boards as long as you, I've found them to be not so bad, when you treat them nicely and with a modest amount of respect.  Ignore those who are baiting you and just answer what you can.

Yours in Christ,


Ed

Date: 2008/07/09 12:21:30, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:16)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:14)
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,11:56)
How is Ftk supposed to actually respond to real questions when so many of you are only out to be very vindictive, call names or speculate on private matters with them?

Very sad actually.

ROFLMAO....


POT MEET KETTLE.... :D

omg....i apologize lcd!!!  I misread that!!!!!1111!!

No one ever supports me in this forum...I'm taken aback!!

Thanks! :)

No problem Ftk.  When I first posted on this board I too went and responded in kind".  It got me nowhere.  Actually they seem to be a fun group of people, even if they are a bit confused.

Date: 2008/07/09 12:36:07, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:32)
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,12:21)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:16)
 
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:14)
 
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,11:56)
How is Ftk supposed to actually respond to real questions when so many of you are only out to be very vindictive, call names or speculate on private matters with them?

Very sad actually.

ROFLMAO....


POT MEET KETTLE.... :D

omg....i apologize lcd!!!  I misread that!!!!!1111!!

No one ever supports me in this forum...I'm taken aback!!

Thanks! :)

No problem Ftk.  When I first posted on this board I too went and responded in kind".  It got me nowhere.  Actually they seem to be a fun group of people, even if they are a bit confused.

They are fun, and I do enjoy bantering with them.  I'm pretty sure they know I like them or I wouldn't spend so much time here.  

I'm just kinda of a high strung person, and things sometimes fly from my fingers before I've had a chance to tone them down a tad....I think they've figured that out as well.  

I'm not saying there aren't a few here who seem a tad physco, but aren't we all to a degree? ;)

Yes, I would think so.

I guess that is why life is meant to be lived.

OBTW, Lou and others, I am trying to collect as much on Information Theory and present it, if I am able, in a coherent and scientific manner.

If I can and it works, do you think there'll be a Nobel at the end of the road?  :)

In any case, I fear it's going to take some time though.  Thanks for your patience.

Date: 2008/07/09 12:51:12, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 09 2008,12:36)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,18:27)
Quote
If you look really really good, you've seen that there is a simple yet unanswered list of questions. As long as the questions remained dodged, they keep mocking.


Yes, you see, lcd....ftk has to answer every question posed to her. These folks don't have to follow those rules.
Giving a single satisfactory (i.e. backed up by actual evidence) answer would go a long way.
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,18:27)
I'm still waiting to be told why common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology.  No one addressed the primary topic of my post.  Although, if I know Bill he's sitting back watching the fireworks while putting together a thoughtful response rather than blurting out in emotional furor like Eramus et. al.
Look at the image to the right on this page. Look at it again.

Common descent explains that. Know of any other concept that does?

Edit: Changed "theory" into "concept". Not exactly sure why, but it looked funny.

I would say ID.  An Intelligent designer would use things over again that worked.  As Chimps and Humans look very much alike from a distance, I'd say that the Designer just "re-used code" as any smart programmer would.

That's what I'd Postulate at least.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:02:13, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,12:58)
lcd:

Quote

An Intelligent designer would use things over again that worked.


So, why would a designer use things over that didn't work?

From what I believe and read it was Original Sin that caused and is causing God's creation to break down.  Micro Evolution is fully supported by ID and indeed it is supported and predicted by it.  The loss of Information is why we get these sub-optimal appearing designs.

God's creation was perfect, our sin destroyed that perfection.

Or again that is what I Postulate.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:08:31, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 09 2008,14:04)
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,14:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,12:58)
lcd:

 
Quote

An Intelligent designer would use things over again that worked.


So, why would a designer use things over that didn't work?

From what I believe and read it was Original Sin that caused and is causing God's creation to break down.  Micro Evolution is fully supported by ID and indeed it is supported and predicted by it.  The loss of Information is why we get these sub-optimal appearing designs.

God's creation was perfect, our sin destroyed that perfection.

Or again that is what I Postulate.

So would Fall Theory imply that disease causing organisms were better at their work before and just after the Fall, or have they lost information and become wimpy over time?

Actually there were no disease causing bacteria.  Yes, there was bacteria, but it was the fall that caused some of them to degenerate and give us what we see today.

Again, there was no death before the fall.  Our sins to God are the cause of all the pain and suffering we see today.

Got to run and I will say the board is becoming more of a who can fling the most right now.


Peace to you all

Date: 2008/07/10 19:19:19, Link
Author: lcd
Well, the idea of being nice and trying to communicate instead of just yelling out each other didn't work.

I am not happy with many of the sexual innuendos from some on this board to a married woman with kids.  Come on, disagree with her statements but not the sexual things.

Let's have some class there guys.

Date: 2008/07/11 06:34:20, Link
Author: lcd
While I can see the real issue we would or actually do have with putting a large rock in such an orbit, as we say in Church, nothing is impossible for God.  If God willed it, then that's all that is needed.

Of course, as Setterfield has pointed out in his C Decay model, perhaps as an artifact of the constants still in flux.  We know from scientific studies in the past, light was much faster.  This could also have affected gravity at the time.

Date: 2008/07/11 07:19:12, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (olegt @ July 11 2008,06:57)
Quote
We know from scientific studies in the past, light was much faster.  
I am not aware of any such studies.  Care to provide a reference?

http://setterfield.org/

Barry Setterfield has looked into this.  It does provide a reasonable explanation of why things look so far off in the Universe while still being young.

Date: 2008/07/11 07:31:15, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (dogdidit @ July 11 2008,07:09)
Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,06:34)
While I can see the real issue we would or actually do have with putting a large rock in such an orbit, as we say in Church, nothing is impossible for God.  If God willed it, then that's all that is needed.
Yabbut what if it God had created the rock so heavy even He couldn't lift it? What then, huh? Huh?

*smugly slaps dust from palms*

Even Hawkings addressed this supposed issue in his books, "A brief History of Time".

The question actually makes no sense.  It's akin to an oxymoron, like "military intelligence" or a "living corpse".  I think the more proper term is "Excluded middle".

Date: 2008/07/11 08:13:06, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 11 2008,07:25)
The Decay of C-Decay

 
Quote

   "If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - 'How is it that objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take millions of years to reach us.'"

- Barry Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981

The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it (Acts and Facts , May 1988, G. Aardsma).

While the creationist camp would have us believe that the theory of c-decay represented a viable scientific alternative to uniformity, and collapsed only under recent, more intense scrutiny, the thrust of this article is to show that the theory was riddled with massive flaws and glaring contradictions from the very start, and was kept alive as long as it was solely by wishful thinking and grotesque deception on the part of its supporters (a sort of Australian Paluxy River, if you will).

Hello Wes,


Here is the issue I have.  Your 2003 article you linked to dismisses Setterfield.  Setterfield has more recently published, 2007, why Talk Origins is not a good resource.

Why should I take your site's word of his when you both, I believe, are being sincere?

Date: 2008/07/11 08:35:25, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,08:19)
I think its funny how even the other YECs think Barry is a loon. Answers in Genesis, for example. Institute for Creation Research also thinks C-decay is bullshit.

Certainly no scientist takes him seriously.

For a theory so groundbreaking, you would think it might get the author more than 2 lines at wikipedia. ;)

EDIT - adding more:

The entire basis of c-decay is based on old measurements of the speed of light, before we had equipment to measure it accurately. The theory has no other basis, so we'll just look at that.

It turns out Barry here just ignored any reading that didn't agree with his bias and only picked those that fit. That's not how a scientist plots a trend.

When you include the readings he ignored, the 'change' in the speed of light goes away. Who would have thought? ;)

But, I suppose, Christians rarely worry about honesty.

I think you're trying to be funny or "save me" or something, but this Christian really does take honesty VERY seriously.


Thank you

Date: 2008/07/11 09:11:42, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (olegt @ July 11 2008,08:58)
I'm still waiting for lcd to provide some reference to data confirming Setterfield's hypothesis.

Setterfield has his own evidence in his paper.

To answer Nerull's question, no I don't think you're a liar.  It is perfectly reasonable for people to look at the same data, see what needs to be done and disagree totally on how it is supposed to be done.

I have that same issue whenever I get together with the other engineers and we're supposed to collaborate and do something.  The way it is solved and how we do it many times is not based on merit but who yells the loudest, who's in charge or who has the purse strings.

Now I hope you understand where I am coming from when I really wonder why some is accepted as science but other voices, Behe, Setterfield and others aren't.  As they don't control the purse strings nor are they in charge, their work is ignored or marginalized.

Date: 2008/07/14 09:21:14, Link
Author: lcd
While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.

Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.

So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else?  What if those beliefs were desecrated?  What would you do?

Date: 2008/07/14 10:05:46, Link
Author: lcd
Excuse me if I am a little short fused but I have a terrible headache.

What I was trying to say is why is it ok to belittle, demean or otherwise make fun of a person's beliefs?  Why is Christianity such a source of amusement?

As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Date: 2008/07/14 12:03:10, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

Date: 2008/07/15 07:01:23, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (bystander @ July 15 2008,02:02)
Coincidentally, I googled intelligent design and probably 80% were critical of ID. The first Australian links were from local papers talking about Dover and the next link was for a web design company. The positive sites seemed to consist mainly of the sites from the UD idiots.

This just shows that ID supporters make up a tiny percentage of the population (0.5% of the US population went to see the movie) and the Evolution Supporters far outweigh them.

I was under the impression that appeals to the popularity of some supposed science doesn't make it right or wrong, only the facts (as one sees them through their own beliefs I'd guess) and evidence.

Now if as you say only 0.5% of the US population went to go see "Expelled", so what?

Date: 2008/07/15 07:28:01, Link
Author: lcd
47, wow that's old.

Happy birthday my friend.

Date: 2008/07/17 09:38:56, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (J-Dog @ July 17 2008,09:06)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 17 2008,08:49)
Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2008,08:40)
I’m not sure which of the following applies. I report, you decide.

Kairosfocus is:
A) Taking Howard Ahmanson and Phillip Johnson for a ride showing them the world that ’should’ be theirs.
B) Heading off for Tierra del Fuego in order to establish the Peoples Democratic Theocracy.
or
C) Escaping an angry calypso band after he sang the Banana Boat song ("daylight come and we wanna go home")

Ummm, I think that the giant gassy object is KF. The basket holds BA^77 and bfast, who are just along for the ride.

Is that Dembski, Denyse or DaveScot that produces the necessary hot air to keep this baby in flight?

I'd say they're listening to Evo rhetoric and the heat for the hot air is being produced from their foreheads.

I guess when they keep on hearing the same stuff over and over about how ID isn't "real science" but Darwinism is, they get a bit mad.

:)

Date: 2008/07/17 15:50:46, Link
Author: lcd
So, what do we win if our post is the first one on the 1000th page?

Or is the award going to be rewarded when it's the 1001st page?

After all, the 1001st page would be the correct one to give it out on.

Date: 2008/07/17 15:51:27, Link
Author: lcd
Another try, when can I get the edit feature?

What do I have to do?

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2008/07/17 15:54:12, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (simmi @ July 17 2008,15:19)
Quote (dogdidit @ July 17 2008,14:00)
 
If Ikonboard "resets" at 1,000, does the topic (UD) likewise reset, through some unknown quantum tunneling process that only born^again^77 can explain? And if so, would all the banninated posters and sockpuppets come flooding back? Where will they all sleep?


For some reason that reminded me of the scene from Ghostbusters where the EPA shuts them down (damn dirty liberal hippies) and all the ghosts escape into the air from the old firehouse.

Now I'm imagining the AtBC crew as the TardBusters...



Which character would YOU be? Dibs on Winston!

I'll be whoever gets to kiss Ms. Weaver.  I've had a crush on her for a long time.  Even if that means I have to be Dr. Peter Venkman.

Date: 2008/07/18 06:45:40, Link
Author: lcd
Tried as I did, I wasn't the first, last or anywhere on the 1000th page.  But at least I'll be on the 1st page of the new thread.

As for UD running out, on the contrary.  I think by the 1000th page we'll see more coming out of ID inspired research than ever before, that is if the Ivory Tower elite and government "yes men" to those people are really interested in science and not just perpetuating a new religious dogma from the Church of Darwin.

As for Ms. Weaver, I never knew she was or is married or that she has a kid.  I was speculating if Ghostbusters were real, I want to be Venkman.  As for having a crush on someone, I'm pretty sure I've violated no Commandment.  The idea that I secretly "coveted thy neighbor's wife", may be applicable, if I was really out to do such a thing and I did know that she was married.  Sorry, but I don't watch ET or any other of those shows.

Date: 2008/07/18 06:48:04, Link
Author: lcd
NO!  My chance for immortality ruined!  I'm not on the 1st page of this new thread.  I had a chance, two chances for fleeting immortality and both are gone!

Oh the shame.

How will I ever overcome it?

Coffee, yes, coffee will do it.  Ok, better now.

May it be a joyous day for all of you.

Date: 2008/07/21 07:33:20, Link
Author: lcd
Hey Thought Provoker.  Yes, I'm the same lcd from the TT board.  Eye to are an Inganere.  Nice to see you over here.

They're not so bbad, maybe little more bravado than that is needed.  But I understand your position, I fear there are some things they just won't look into and give an honest shake to when they don't like it.  Also, if you leave the reservation, check out what they are doing to an atheist Phd on the Uncommonly Dense Thread.


Ed

Date: 2008/07/21 13:41:08, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 21 2008,13:26)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,15:01)
I suggest Joy has more depth of character than you give her credit.

She does have a temper that gets in the way at times (an understatement).

However, I find her crazy-like-a-fox personna (she calls it being a "Professional Fool") interesting and challenging.

I have found our association rewarding.

Depth of character.

Here's another:

The Jewish Anti-Defamation league came out condemning the Darwin = Hitler meme in Expelled. Joy rejected this, and said that even tho she is not Jewish, she knows what anti-Semitism is better than Jews do. I personally find that to be completely insane. Do you have an opinion on this?

Don't you find it demoralizing to have your 'movement' led by people who think like this?

Did she really say that?

Could you provide a link?

I'll withhold my opinion until I see such a thing.

Date: 2008/07/21 18:51:40, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (keiths @ July 21 2008,15:10)
Quote (lcd @ July 21 2008,11:41)

Did she really say that?

Could you provide a link?

I'll withhold my opinion until I see such a thing.

Well, now you've seen it.  What's your opinion, lcd?

I am not happy.

Date: 2008/07/23 07:03:09, Link
Author: lcd
Are you guys sure who is and who is not a "sheep in wolf's clothing"?

On the Telic Thoughts board there are some who are promoting "Front Loading".  At first I had no problem with Front Loading.  I thought it was a great way to disprove Darwinism and made a great way to show just how Intelligent the Designer is.

My wife brought home a copy of the "Design Matrix" from one of our friends from Church.  When I first read it, I thought, "Great, now this is what we need to drive a stake in the heart of the Darwin Beast".  Then that is when it hit my wife.

What my wife did was she asked this one question, "Ed, why did God do this?  Why did God plan to have things come into to the world later as if He expected something to go wrong?"

I was asked by kornbelt888 "if my theology is more important than what the evidence suggests".  It is.  This is also on a blog that had people posting about "The Road to Truth" and that how "evidence can be superficial".

As I said earlier, I am not happy.

Date: 2008/07/23 07:12:48, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,07:07)
Ofcourse you're not happy, Jesus is against lying, and you're clinging on to a lie (The Darwinist Beast, what the hell?). And I agree with Jesus here, ooo yes.

Great, if you agree with Jesus, should should also agree with what he said about His Father.

That would be God created it all and His Word is really all we need.

Date: 2008/07/23 07:25:19, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,07:16)
Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,07:12)
 
Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,07:07)
Ofcourse you're not happy, Jesus is against lying, and you're clinging on to a lie (The Darwinist Beast, what the hell?). And I agree with Jesus here, ooo yes.

Great, if you agree with Jesus, should should also agree with what he said about His Father.

That would be God created it all and His Word is really all we need.

Why should I? I never sad I agreed with everything Jesus supposedly sad, and if reality shows that the literal interpretations of the texts you're refering to are nót correlating with reality, then so be it. You're clinging to an interpretation, nothing more, an interpretation wich is apperantly nót in correlation with reality to our current knowledge. That's holding on to a lie, and you know Jesus was opposed to lying, yet you are still doing it. Don't you agree with Jesus on that point then?

I am not lying.

I am telling you what I believe to be true and that in His Word is the Truth.  I fail to see how that is lying.  It sounds more like you're deliberately trying to be confusing.

Date: 2008/07/23 08:47:09, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,08:40)
It doesn't matter what you beleive, reality doesn't care about what you beleive, what I beleive or what anyone beleives. You knów about how our view on reality is developing, and that it's not in correlation with your interpretation of your holy texts. Yet, you keep clinging on your interpretation and reject anything that goes against it. I call that lying, dishonest would cut it as well. And Jesus doesn't fancy that, and I thought you were pretty fond of Jesus.

I have no reason to go against the Word of God.

What I find interesting is that I am supposed to not believe in God's own Words and what believe in the same stuff you do?  I'm supposed to change my belief in God into your belief in Darwin.

No thanks.

As for my believing in what the Bible says, not believing in God's Word is not an option for me.  Some may pick and choose what they believe from the Bible but as they say, the road to salvation is narrow while the road to damnation is well paved and easy to follow.

I choose the road that leads to salvation no matter how difficult it may seem.

Date: 2008/07/23 08:59:17, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Louis @ July 23 2008,08:51)
No one, I repeat, NO ONE believes in Darwin. Or Darwinism. Or Evolutionary Biology. Or any such thing.

a) Science is not a religion whatever lies you;ve been sold.

and

b) Belief simply doesn't enter into it.

Is it possible that you are STILL this clueless? Do you want to learn anything or actually discuss anything or are you simply here to spout creationist tropes everyone has heard and refuted since about the 1900s?

Louis

You have to believe that you're right in what the evidence presents in front of you don't you?  You believe in what Darwin says, right?

As for believing stuff, I don't believe in Front Loading.  See how this part of the thread started here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y117554

I spoke my peace on how I came to reject Front Loading both on this board and at TT.  Yes, it was on theological grounds but check it out here:

http://telicthoughts.com/we-were-absolutely-stunned/#comments

So no, I don't believe things that were told to me just because.

Date: 2008/07/23 09:04:09, Link
Author: lcd
OBTW Louis,


I have to put this in a new post as I don't have an edit function yet.

I don't like this idea of "Academic Freedom" either as passed by Louisiana.  I can see too many other types, even worse than Evil, Nazi, Jack-Booted Darwinists (for Lou), trying to push their own agenda into schools and guising it up like science.  I can see Voodoo, Neo-Paganism-New Age stuff and worse sliding into schools as "teaching the controversy".

As for "Darwinists", I have a deal with this board to consider.

Stop calling Creationists "Tards" and I'll stop referring to you guys as "Darwinists".

Fair deal?

Date: 2008/07/23 10:29:41, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Nerull @ July 23 2008,10:04)
lcd, do you believe it is moral and required to murder children who do not listen to their parents, under biblical law?

You mean those children who do not listen and then rob, kill, steal from and worse?  I do not have a problem with Capital Punishment.  Indeed, I think it is used too sparingly in the US.

You're speaking of this passage:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 KJV

18  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19  Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20  And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

It is easily seen that this is not a run of the mill misbehaving kid.  This is one who has done much wrong.  So to kill a child is not really an issue.  The person is a drunkard, so they are not small, and they are breaking many laws.

So killing a child who sasses?  No.  Using Capitol Punishment on your offspring who is committing serious offenses such as murder, yes.

Date: 2008/07/23 10:35:41, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Nerull @ July 23 2008,10:32)
Obviously an adult, then.

Because minimum age drinking laws existed a few thousand years ago.

And, sorry, "strubborn and rebellious" describes 99% of teenagers. It doesn't say murderer.

Obviously as so many kids would have the money to buy booze and go out on their own.

Being an adult I'd suppose came a lot earlier than it does in today's world.

Date: 2008/07/23 13:15:18, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I second dheddle's POV.

I had issues with TT and Front Loading.  I still don't like it.

Date: 2008/07/25 09:51:59, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (jeffox @ July 25 2008,09:06)
I think FTK expects transitional fossils to be like this one:



HOO HAA from a Viking fan.   :)    :)    :)    :)

Yeah, ask the Vikings about boats.....

Favre would have been smarter to keep quite instead of being so direct.  If he didn't say he was going to retire, the Head Cheese Heads wouldn't have drafted 2 QBs

Date: 2008/07/28 11:41:47, Link
Author: lcd
I don't understand.

Mr. Heddle, am I correct in thinking you are a Creationist of some sort?  The correlation is that you believe in God and His Works and Word, correct?

Why does it seem as you not really welcomed at UD and other Creationist sites?  Yes, I will concede that ID and IC are Creationist ideas.  What I do wish for is more science from them to prove Darwin wrong and that God is indeed the First, and I might add, only Creator.

Date: 2008/07/28 20:00:10, Link
Author: lcd
Well, my God does not need any defending.  What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".  Like what I've seen, Evolution needs to be believed.  That is not science.  I know that I'm going to get hung out to dry, but I think it takes more to believe that things combined just so than to say, and I'll say it again, God did it.

What I am not happy to say that I see no science in the ID movement.  In ID I do see things that can be used to make some believe in LGMs running around in the Universe.  The ID movement tries to cover its tracks, but to do so, I am reminded of Matthew 26:34.

Good night all,


Ed

Date: 2008/07/29 07:21:55, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)
Quote
What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".


I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'?

Because their pastor told them so.

Hehe, good one.

Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe.

I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.

Date: 2008/07/29 11:14:43, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 29 2008,10:23)
Around here, there are lots of sciency types that can demonstrate that if Genesis is intended to be a science book, then it is a spectacularly incorrect book.  I suggest that we may cover those topics on another thread if you wish, or alternatively (and to stay on topic) we would absolutely love for you to take your issues over to the dungeon of UD and see how well your fellow travellers accept your claim of an inerrant bible (is that your claim?)

Wait a minute.

So you're saying that the good folks of UD do not believe in an inerrant Bible?

Date: 2008/07/29 12:01:50, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 29 2008,11:24)
i don't know what those folks really believe.  i do know they pay lip service to old earth, although Dr Dr Dembski has made some statements elsewhere that give good reason to regard his view as inerrantist.  He has made statements that the age of the earth doesn't matter, in one publication, and then in another that the bible is the inspired word of god.  So I chalk him up to saying whatever is useful in the context he is working in at the moment.

you were being sarcastic, right?

No I am not being sarcastic.

If Dr. Dembski is an inerrantist who believes in a young Earth then he should say so.  Hiding behind double talk is not very Christian.  That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as.

Again Matthew 26:34 comes to mind.

Date: 2008/07/29 12:47:35, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:34)
Icd:  
Quote
That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as.


You aren't Denise, are you?

Nope.

Sorry.


Ed

Date: 2008/07/29 13:30:30, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2008,13:17)
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,10:47)
Quote (blipey @ July 29 2008,12:34)
Icd:    
Quote
That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as.
You aren't Denise, are you?
Nope.

Sorry.


Ed
For the record, I think Blipey was alluding to the horribly mangled (and basically uninterpretable) syntax of the sentence he cited.

Again, I posted without going through Word.

Let's see:

That is what many I know who feel that Evolution is deception from evil at it's very worst accuse Evolutionists as.

Should read:

Many people I know who feel Evolution is evil incarnate and deceptive believe that Evolutionists are dishonest and deceptive.

If the good Dr. Dembski is hiding behind double talk and purposely confusing things, he is being deceptive.  I certainly hope that is not the case.  Those who believe in God's Word have nothing to fear.

Date: 2008/07/29 13:35:42, Link
Author: lcd
Many people I know who feel Evolution is evil incarnate and deceptive believe that Evolutionists are dishonest and deceptive.

Ummm,

Many people I know who feel Evolution is evil incarnate and deceptive believe that it is only the Evolutionist's side that is dishonest and deceptive.

Date: 2008/07/29 14:08:09, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 29 2008,13:47)
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,14:35)
Many people I know who feel Evolution is evil incarnate and deceptive believe that Evolutionists are dishonest and deceptive.

Ummm,

Many people I know who feel Evolution is evil incarnate and deceptive believe that it is only the Evolutionist's side that is dishonest and deceptive.

Lcd: What's your stance on that question?

There are liars everywhere.

The worst to me are not the ones like PZ Meyers or Gould.  I think they believed, at least while one lived, what they said.  The ones who I feel show that they are the worst of the worst are those that lie to make money.

That can be the stereo-typical TV-evangelist who is actually a self-absorbed showman who rides in limos and takes private jets to the Bahamas with somebody other than their spouse or it can be the college professor who knows that something isn't right but have a vested interest in keeping their mouths shut.

For the record I believe you guys, like me, are here to learn and teach.

Date: 2008/07/29 14:58:12, Link
Author: lcd
I don't know but I have no doubt they are out there.

Date: 2008/07/29 14:59:09, Link
Author: lcd
Can I get an edit button?  I promise not to abuse it.

By "they" I mean both sides.

Date: 2008/07/29 15:15:34, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 29 2008,15:08)
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,13:30)
Those who believe in God's Word have nothing to fear.
Then why do you folks act like terrified little children?

You'll have to ask someone else.  I'm not afraid.

Before you ask, "Ok Ed, where do you live, what's the wife's name, kids, etc.", I'm not foolish either.

Date: 2008/07/30 06:45:27, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Ok, I see all the responses including those that seem to indicate that college professors are not making much money.  This is in stark contrast to the idea that many have and that would include myself have that grants and tenure give out.  I will say that more than a few have the idea that college professors, especially tenured ones, have nice college provided housing and they sit around a fire place with Brandy sifters and discuss how to remove God from everyday life.

For those of you who think I am joking, I am not.

I will take all of you at your word that money is not something that college professors enjoy having in excess.

So why do they do it?  What's to gain?

Date: 2008/07/30 07:20:19, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 30 2008,06:59)
Lcd:
 
Quote
it can be the college professor who knows that something isn't right but have a vested interest in keeping their mouths shut.


Give us an example or retract that statement as unsupported.

You are not afraid, remember?

So, who's being saying things they know are lies?

Quote
So why do they do it?  What's to gain?


Do what? Tell lies that they full know to be lies? Obviously college professors do what they do because they love lying.

I think it is O'Leary. That mix of ignorance and weird grammar is hard to miss.

No I'm not afraid.

I can't point to any one professor.  I admit that.  The idea and I will say it is a strong one that I took as fact up until recently is that a college professorship with tenure is cushy and part of some "good ol' boy network" of "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" along with some sort of conspiracy of silence.

Lies?  So if someone really thinks that they have the facts and they believe it, those are lies?

What the issue really is boils down to too many scientists seem to be so busy looking into their microscopes to notice that the rest of us aren't there with them.

Like the person who came to the church to dissect and really "blow the myth of evolution out of the water".  He came to us to talk to us.  Will some of these college professors do the same or are they "too busy"?  From what I've been reading, too many science types are "loathe to discuss Creation vs Evolution" for fear that they will give credibility to Creation.

I have something for you.

Your silence and refusal to go and speak out gives the impression that you have something to hide.  That you're afraid to have your ideas actually put forth in open debate.

If you really feel that Darwinian science and scientists are being made into "liars and charlatans" and that your science can't stand up under real scrutiny with the public looking in, I can point them to a device that will show them where the problem is.

It's called a mirror.

Date: 2008/07/30 07:53:42, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Here's something my first boss told me.  I really didn't like the man but he had a few pearls of wisdom.  "When your reality clashes with another's perception, don't think your reality means squat to that person."

In your reality, Gish and others are the liars.

In other people's perception, their reality, Evolutionists are.

For those of you who "want to teach", you certainly haven't been doing a very good job of that would be my perception.

Date: 2008/07/30 07:57:19, Link
Author: lcd
Actually Steve, I've been treated very well on this board, despite my views being different than many of the posters here.

I find that refreshing and speaks very well of the board.

Of course that makes my unhappy about censorship on other boards, grumble, grumble.

Date: 2008/07/30 08:08:13, Link
Author: lcd
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Nerull @ July 30 2008,08:05)
Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,08:53)
Here's something my first boss told me.  I really didn't like the man but he had a few pearls of wisdom.  "When your reality clashes with another's perception, don't think your reality means squat to that person."

In your reality, Gish and others are the liars.

In other people's perception, their reality, Evolutionists are.

For those of you who "want to teach", you certainly haven't been doing a very good job of that would be my perception.

So lets do something simple.

Where did this "professors are rich and driving around lamborginis" thing come from? Let me guess - creationists.

They know better, lcd. They are intentionally lying to you.

This is becoming my "tag line" I suppose, but I am learning more and as I've said before, "I'm not happy".

I'll be dropping off for a while.


Ciao

Date: 2008/07/30 09:04:38, Link
Author: lcd
Wesley and olegt:


I came back on this to tell you that is what I hear and see.  Since I came here I've learned a lot.

Sorry if your feelings are hurt and I'm sorry if the feelings many have are unwarrented and nothing but slurs.

Again, this is what I hear walking down the halls.  This is what I was was true.  I had no idea that those things were attended and open that Wesley posted.  Again, those things are never brought up and they aren't known by many.

Perhaps many that I know including myself need to learn more and I am doing just that.

If it seems that I am slurring you or deliberately targetting anyone, I am not.  Believe me you'll know when I am actually being vindictive as I will come out and say it.

Again, the perception by many in the church is exactly what I have said.  The gent who went to the church said as much.  I will find out where he is and talk to him about who is doing what and if he has nothing, remind him of bearing false witness.

Again, I am learning and I'm being completely honest in what many believe is going on in the "Ivory Towers, where reality is a curious thing to be ignored."

I am sorry if you feel those were my feelings.  In many instances they were and there are some institutions that make me wonder completely about how people are educated in the US.  That is my issue however.  I will continue to look into it, I promise.

Date: 2008/08/01 09:13:00, Link
Author: lcd
Wow,


So much bitterness.  I guess it's time to go.  Perhaps I'll learn to be more "Internet Savvy" as Joy suggested.  Asking questions seems to be something that TT doesn't want to see happen.  The part that surprises me the most is that they deny God.

I will continue my studies and learn more.  Thanks for treating me so well here on this board.  I'll be back but not for some time.


Ed

Date: 2008/08/06 20:05:11, Link
Author: lcd
Howdy all,


Ok, I'm confused (yeah, yeah Lou, Louis and others - you evil Neo Nazi-Marxist wannabes - I know what you're thinking).

Why did Baylor, in your opinions get rid of Dr. Dembski?  I have been lurking in and around several boards and I have heard a good deal from Dr. Dembski about Baylor "caving in".

I'd like to hear more of what you all have to say on the subject.


Later and thanks

Date: 2008/08/06 20:14:04, Link
Author: lcd
"And your mother smelled of elder berries"

From my younger days.

Ok.  "Front Loading".  Is there anything in your Evolutionary DOGMA that points to "Front Loading" of the genes?

When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought that was something an Intelligent Designer would do.  What bothers me of course is why would God front load anything as that is a contingency plan if something went wrong.

It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.  God wouldn't have planned on that being the way it happened.

Date: 2008/08/06 20:16:02, Link
Author: lcd
Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.

Date: 2008/08/06 20:18:48, Link
Author: lcd
That should say:

YEAH, YEAH LOU, LOUIS AND OTHERS - YOU EVIL NEO NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES - I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING

Yes, I'm psychic, just ask my daughter as she swears I know what she's really going to try to pull before she does it.

Date: 2008/08/06 20:38:05, Link
Author: lcd
Thanks all, that is I think a thank you for your answers is deserved.

???

Date: 2008/08/07 07:10:48, Link
Author: lcd
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later

Date: 2008/08/07 19:43:36, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 07 2008,07:25)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.
I do. You have been programmed from an early age.

Tell me LCD, did you choose your faith at 18 or did the people who brought you up also believe and pass that to you? Are you the only one in your family who believes as you do? In your community?[/quote]I was not born into my faith.  I was Catholic but they didn't hold me.
Quote
It's quite simple really.

Nothing wrong with that*. It's just the way it is.

There are no christian babies, just babies. It needs to be programmed into them.

What evidence is it that you are looking for?
Wow.  I never really thought about it.  I want to say evidence that everyone agrees on is a start.  The engineer part in me knows that you get 4 injunears in a room and you have 24 opinions.  Evidence that stands up to scrutiny and any counter-attack that descends into name calling and hand waiving.
Quote
How old do you think the earth is LCD?
I have been told that the Earth is 6 to 10 thousands years old.
Quote
Was there really a global flood that covered the entire earth and killed all but a handful of people?
That is what I believe.
Quote
Did Adam and Eve really exist?
That is what I've been told.
Quote
Are these things you are looking for evidence for?
The age of the Earth and the Flood are great places to start.[quote]*Everything wrong with that.

Hey,


Since you asked so nicely:


Night.

Date: 2008/08/07 19:44:23, Link
Author: lcd
Can I get the edit function so I can fix mix ups like that?

Date: 2008/08/08 07:02:41, Link
Author: lcd
Howdy all,


Got into work real early and of course, nobody else is in.  That includes the person who wanted this to start early.

I just want to share with you a few things.

1:  I have noted with considerable distress that the science is mostly from non creationist sources.

2:  ID is a big tent that I fear has many issues, notably keeping many different faiths tied in under the guise of, "We don't need to know (wink, wink) who the designer is".

3:  I am not looking for evidence to bolster my faith in God or His Word in our world.  I think that if others who don't have faith see God's hand in things then hopefully this world will be a better place.

4:  I am looking for Positive Evidence FOR not Negative Evidence against something.  I am very aware that evidence one thinks disproves one thing does not bolster their own ideas.  Only evidence for one's position bolsters your idea.


Now for the negative parts:

1:  I've told more than a few friends who are also YEC or YEC leaning about this site.  A few have taken a look.  None really want to expose themselves here.  A few of you are nice, thanks for the support Jeff, and many are very informative.  Still even some of you who have the good info come at others like a ton of bricks.  It is hard to listen to someone when they are being rude.

2:  Speaking of rude, TARD, is rude.  I know what you said it means.  To others it means you think others who disagree with you are cretins-creotard which is what they see.  The term Creationist is combined with Retard is what is first thought of when many saw that.  It is what I took it to mean.

3:  As to what many of you might have believed that I was being rude to you in academia when I wrote about "Ivory Tower-ites".  I was not trying to be rude.  Sorry if it came out that way.  There was a story about some college professor (I think she was) that falsified her (?) findings.  Now I didn't pay much attention to it.  All I kept from it was, "College, studies, false, made stuff up".  Sad thing is I thought I was watching carefully and knew what was going on.  Sadly that was not correct.  So when dealing with people outside of academia, realize that we don't know everything and it seems we remember what we want to or already suspect.  This is in direct response to my being quizzed on naming a scientist who was doing something wrong.  I can't even remember what discipline that person was in.  I apologize for saying it even though I didn't mean it the way many of you might have thought I said it.  


So what does this all mean?  As little or as much as you want it to mean.  If you can't see yourself doing anything that might be nice as you are so jaded by real or perceived slights, perhaps you should take a break.


Later,


Ed

Date: 2008/08/10 18:47:46, Link
Author: lcd
I've asked my questions at the UD board.

Please forgive me but I hope they answer in a way that shocks and surprises you.


Later,


Ed

Date: 2008/08/10 19:38:38, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 10 2008,19:34)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 10 2008,18:47)
I've asked my questions at the UD board.

Please forgive me but I hope they answer in a way that shocks and surprises you.


Later,


Ed

Link please?

Um,


I have no control over this:
Quote
9
lcd

08/10/2008

6:42 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Howdy all,
Sorry.

Date: 2008/08/10 19:41:05, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 10 2008,19:34)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 10 2008,18:47)
I've asked my questions at the UD board.

Please forgive me but I hope they answer in a way that shocks and surprises you.


Later,


Ed

Link please?

From here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

I hope that it clears soon.

Date: 2008/08/10 19:45:57, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2008,03:17)
Ahhhhh excellent. Another year of not being dead. Celebrate it. Many great wishes of wonderfulness on your non-death-iversary.

Louis

You certainly have a way with words.

As I was able to navigate I-40 from the beach today, should I celebrate my "non-accidents"?

:)

Happy birthday Jim

Dammit Jim, he's NOT dead

Date: 2008/08/10 20:00:12, Link
Author: lcd
I'll ask here as I've already asked on the TT Board.

What systems are considered IC by IC proponents?

Date: 2008/08/11 06:33:34, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 11 2008,04:32)
Absolutely!

(Although you should realise that I was being humourous)

Every non accident or non death is a cause for celebration. Life: it's got to be better than the alternative.

;-)

Louis

Yep, that is why I had the smiley face :) (I guess I should have used  :) from the smilies to the left)

Why they are different?

Date: 2008/08/11 06:35:09, Link
Author: lcd
:)   :(  :D  :p  ;)  ???  :O  :angry:

Each one, in order left to right, column one on down.....

Any chance I can earn the edit function here?  I really don't want to have to sleep with someone though, the wife will be upset.

Date: 2008/08/11 07:31:55, Link
Author: lcd
What to say.


As to, "Looking for science evidence to back up my faith", what is wrong with that?  Many people believe in many things.  Who among you wouldn't like that faith you placed in someone confirmed?  No matter if they are a loved one, your boss, even faith that the money you loaned your brother in law so he can start a car repair place, while you have faith they are doing right by and for you, seeing it is always welcomed.

It is true that I may not have had the most opened mind when coming to this and other boards.  But I am asking questions of BOTH SIDES and not taking, "Because I said so", for an answer.

To his point of
Quote
Quote
4:  I am looking for Positive Evidence FOR not Negative Evidence against something.
Umm, didn’t you just say that you weren’t doing that?
I'm not doing that.  I am looking for evidence that confirms my faith and in the way I believe things are.  If I did what you are accusing me of, I would not have said that I've found more science coming from the non-creationist side of the argument, something I hope you'll see I had a very hard time actually saying.

As for being rude meaning going someplace and thinking one knows more that someone else, does that apply to people who go to the UD or TT board as well?  For many who are getting into the debate as an active participant, going with one side or the other woiuld make one seem to be rude.

Now to deal with this part:
Quote
You are responsible for your own beliefs.  If you believe stupid and wrong things, when you are a Google away from learning the truth, that’s your fault.  Not anyone else’s.
Yes, one can Google and get many sites, but which one to believe?

Google "Evolution Creation Debate" and here's a partial list:

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Explores creation/evolution/intelligent design, gives the evidence for ... Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of ...
www.talkorigins.org/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Creation-evolution controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy - 276k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Creation vs Evolution Debates
Creation / Evolution Debate at Westminster Report by the antiCreation IBSS. ... Gish - Saladin Debate II 1988 Evolution vs Creationism; Gish - Massimo ...
www.nwcreation.net/debates.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
An Introduction to the Evolution versus Creation Debate
The evolution / creation debate hinges largely on a disagreement regarding the nature of science and scientific theories. Before getting into that, however, ...
www.freethoughtdebater.com/evolutioncreation.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Evolution Vs Creation
Evolution Vs Creation - The Great Debate over the Model of Origins: the ... The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the "Great Debate. ...
www.allaboutcreation.org/Evolution-Vs-Creation.htm - 33k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The Sopranos weigh in on the evolution-creation debate. - The ...
Apr 5, 2006 ... Evidently, producers, artists, and writers in the entertainment industry are very much aware of the whole evolution-creation-ID debate that ...
www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/the-sopranos-we.html - 64k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
EvC Forum: Creation versus Evolution
The Creation/Evolution Debate. Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing ...
www.evcforum.net/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Controversy
of the Anti-Evolution Law" · "Justices Brennan and Scalia Debate "Creation-Science" in Edwards v Aguillard" Biographies of Key Figures in the Controversy ...
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


So which one does one read and believe?  One would think that would depend on who is doing the lookup.

Even to Google something else, say "Guns in America", you get, another partial list:

CBSNews.com
GUNS IN AMERICA, ---------------------, Firearms Timeline, Laws & Deaths By State, Who's At Risk? ... Gun Laws And Fatalities. INFOGRAPHIC: Who's At Risk? ...
www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/guns_in_america/html/framesource.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
GunsAmerica - Connecting Gun Buyers to Gun Sellers Since 1997 ...
GunsAmerica | Where America Buys And Sells Guns .... This fine gun has a 5" handfit match barrel w/ bushing, a magwell ...(read more) ...
www.gunsamerica.com/ - 191k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Brady Campaign - Kids & Guns in America
KIDS AND GUNS IN AMERICA. It shouldn't take a school shooting or an inner-city neighborhood shooting to make us realize that American children are more at ...
www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=kids - 20k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
GUNS IN AMERICA:Americans want firearms and federal restrictions
One other national figure, however, may summarize America's mixed emotions toward guns best of all. Even though a large majority of the people think gun ...
www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part1/gunside2.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
GUNS IN AMERICA, THE FACTS
The net value of private firearm ownership - the dollar savings from defensive gun use, minus the costs of "gun-violence" - has been estimated at up to ...
www.jrwhipple.com/guns/firearm_facts.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


Again which one is to be believed?

Thanks for your input.  I hope you can now see the difficulty there is trying to get a straight answer.

Hopefully you'll also be a little more nice and withhold fire a little longer.


Ed

Date: 2008/08/11 08:58:26, Link
Author: lcd
Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?

Date: 2008/08/11 09:45:22, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (ERV @ Aug. 11 2008,09:11)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 11 2008,07:05)
No need to wait, lcd.  They've already got one.

That's the one with the transitional fossil in it, and that fossil succinctly, eloquently, and unequivocally should tell you all you need to know about the "science" of Intelligent Design.

No, they have two textbooks.  Dont forget Dembski @ Co. are bumbling thieves, as well as lying sacks of shit.

And of course you have evidence to back that up or is that your belief?

I ask as if one is going to actually claim something, one should have the evidence.

Date: 2008/08/11 09:50:11, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 11 2008,09:44)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,08:58)
Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?

LCD,
Of all the types of eye in the world, which one is the "best"?

kthanxby

Trick question.

I understand that the eye of a Cephalopod doesn't have a blind spot where as our mammalian eyes do.  That comes from the blood vessels in the Cephalopod being able to supply blood under the light receptive areas in their eyes.

Ours are fed through the top.  An interesting design feature to be sure.

Date: 2008/08/11 09:52:39, Link
Author: lcd
Hit the send to quickly.

As to which one is best, do cephalopods see the same way as we do?  Is their colors as vivid, etc.?  Does the design of one way, ours, have intrinsic value we don't know?

To answer honestly, I don't know.  I'm not being rude or nasty.  I don't know which is best.

Date: 2008/08/11 09:55:13, Link
Author: lcd
Yes I did.

I am no lawyer, but isn't that a bit of hearsay?  Granted the piece doesn't put Dembski in anything resembling a good light.

If they are criminals, shouldn't someone report them?

Date: 2008/08/11 11:58:18, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 11 2008,10:07)
??? How much benefit of the doubt can you give them LCD?

In truth, I'm running out.

I thought that was covered under "Fair use".

I was wrong.

Date: 2008/08/11 12:32:05, Link
Author: lcd
To any UD proponent.  Is this true?  Did Dr. Dembski actually misuse someone else's work for his own profit?

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but the weight of evidence is stacking up against him.  I'm really asking for some help here.  I want to know that people who are leading the charge to show that there is alternatives to Evolution are not themselves doing the very thing they accuse others of doing.


Ed

Date: 2008/08/11 12:40:34, Link
Author: lcd
Going away for a while.

You can see my latest post at TT under the deletion thread of "Open letter to Dr. Dembski" here:

http://telicthoughts.com/true-and-false-messiahs/#comments

This has been an eye opening experience.


Thank You,


Ed

Date: 2008/08/12 08:52:57, Link
Author: lcd
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 12 2008,08:39)
Ed you are all right.  I fear that with that last name we may be kinfolks.  Ever been to Madison County NC?

Nope, my dad's family is from Kentucky.

My mom's family, well, er, New Jersey.

Date: 2008/10/23 12:59:23, Link
Author: lcd
Howdy all,


Well I've been gone for a while and nice to see there are a few constants in this universe.  This place is one of them.

I've been reading what's been going on here and it looks like many are talking past each other again.  I'll say though, and it distresses me to say this, the majority of the ones talking past the other aren't on "Evilutionist" side.

I hope everyone, no matter their politics as long as they are US citizens, votes November 4th.


Ed

Date: 2009/03/15 17:11:56, Link
Author: lcd
Howdy all,


I would like to report that I too have had my posts deleted.  Fortunately, I was able to go back through the pages on my browser and resurrect them:

Quote
36

lcd

03/15/2009

3:46 pm

Mapou,

Actually Kellogg did take your argument to the cleaners and absolutely destroyed it. He was not only able to refute what you stated but as you have not been able to counter that it would seem as though your comment was wrong.

While I’d love to see Darwinists taken to task, only when we on the ID side are able to show them where their ideas are wrong and maintain it will they have to look at their own pigheadedness and fallacies. Otherwise it is the ID side that looks foolish.


40

lcd

03/15/2009

4:04 pm

I don’t believe that humanity has different species either.

But I do know that many Christians in the US 150 years ago did. Very religious men like John C. Calhoun and others from the US south spoke at length about the “inferiority of the negro”. These men were not Darwinists and believe in the literal creation. They also believe in Ham and his “mark” that was left to his descendants. Darwin I think was considered “far too liberal” for men like Calhoun.

Wouldn’t it be better to conclude that racism is actually more a form of Xenophobia? As to some in the science being tainted with racism, I heartily agree. The problem is there are those who profess to be Christian, follow Our Lord Jesus and yet still demonize others for the colour of their skin.

Seems that it is people who are racists and religion and science, just as any other tool, can be misused by anyone with a point of view they want to expose.


43

lcd

03/15/2009

4:12 pm

Joseph:

So race was used for classification and not by Creationists

That seems to have been made not by science, but by people who already had it in their mind to put people into groups.

Be very careful. Many Christians in the US South had “classifications” for the different races. 150 years ago, people were classified into “masters” and “slaves”.

I fear that the further digging into the idea that Darwin was a racist (and from a 21st Century POV he could be considered that) as it can be shown that religion was even more misused that science when it came to “race”. Again, I stress that the SBC came into existence as it tried to give slavery biblical support.


50

lcd

03/15/2009

4:24 pm

This is incredibly disheartening. I was hoping to find credible research that backs up ID as a viable and testable science. So far, I have not seen any.

The thing I find most disheartening is that it seems that the best ID research can do is cast dispersions on people born 200 years ago.


55

03/15-2009

4:26 pm

Mapou,


As one Christian to another, what about the Christians who are racist even to the point of declaring it gospel?

To me they are not Christian at all but are in fact misusing the gospel to promote their personal agenda.  The downside I'd guess would mean then that scientists who are trying to misuse science by claiming science to justify their racism are not using science at all.

Perhaps we should stop trying to tar and feather the science community as there are far too many Christians who do not act in a Christian manner at all.
Just wanted to complain to someone.

 

 

 

=====