Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit
Nobody is disputing that. However, we need to look at the obvious reality, there will be times in the future when there is a Democrat president.
Again, what do you mean by “Wormwood” manipulating Jim Robinson?
RA WAS NOT banned for the profanity to T’wit, he was suspended. He was allowed back and then banned for other reasons, perhaps Jim Robinson could give you a better explanation.
What I actually wrote was this:
"But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge."
IOW, I never said that ALL who doubt science in general and Evolutionary Theory in particular were "Purveyors of Unknowledge" -- just the ones who behaved in the manner I described in the essay. If you didn't behave that way, good for you; you're off the hook.
I hope that clarified my point.
**************
Are you referring to the Wormwood who has been banned/suspended? If not, what is the reference?
My reference is to Lord of the Rings. It’s a metaphor.
Interesting. I already thought the “get stuffed” comment was way out of character for RA. I have to confess that I thought you might have gotten that quote from another site that misquoted him, until I looked it up.
RA and I have talked about online tone - He’s a genuinely nice, generous, smart, good communicator who apparently really lost his online temper on April 5. That’s gonna happen sometimes. And he certainly wasn’t/isn’t the only one - it almost never happens in a vacuum.
As for science...
There are all kinds of topics that can be key to understanding the news of the day: law, history, religion, economics, medicine and science etc.
Non-science folk may feel as bored in the pure science threads as I feel when my wife tries to share a 50 page thread on some aspect of scrap booking.
But its really good for a news discussion forum to have folks around who are knowledgeable about key topics, particularly when they are open about their identity and we can check their credentials.
I don’t get involved in forum administration and I don’t know what went on privately in this case but I hope on a going forward basis we can appreciate the benefit when we get conservative experts in relevant fields.
I see. Thanks.
I was personally on the thread with RA and T’wit when RA made the statements.
I will say this on the subject. Anyone positing creationism(tm) as science is fundamentally anti-science. Or, at the very least, sufficiently anti-science to suspend all current scientific understanding, when supporting creationism. It's not the belief in Creationism that bothers me. It is the push for creationism and it's half-sister, ID, as science that is the issue. I have yet to see a credible fact based scientific arguement supporting creationism that does not involved warping and abusing current scientific understanding, distorting facts or outright "lying for the Lord." These superficial and misguided scientific rationals in favor of creationism, if taken seriously, would make someone less knowledgeable in those fields of science. To support creationism means to throw out all of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, genetics, archeology, etc.,. That's where I take issue. That being said, as a philosophy, I have no contention with ID. But I know enough science to know that ID is different. It is a concept based in faith, not evidence and can never be empirically tested.
>>I was personally on the thread with RA and Twit when RA made the statements.<<
Every time I feel like I’m being unduly skeptical of sources, I remember a wise man who said “Trust but verify.”
I’ve been informed that My reference to LOTR should have been Wormtongue instead of Wormwood. Not the first time I’ve misremembered a name.
good post!
Here it is:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809596/posts?page=323#323
And before he got banned, he started to use the term “Reichsmordwoche” which was a Nazi term that meant, “Reich blood purge.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=2399#2399
This is baloney, but thank you for proving my point by stating it. And in what seems darn near universal, it's always this garbage about YEC. No one believes YEC and anyone who does cannot possibly be a threat to you, or science as you define it, regardless of how many "wedge documents" exist. But again, the irrational fear to even discuss the notion of DESIGN IN LIFE is pervasive throughout academia and therefore any debate must be stamped out by those in academia. Do you deny this is what is happening? (No, you justify it with irrationality and claims of a scientific bogeyman) How is this science? I thought science is to be open to all possibilities? I guess it's open to all possibilities as long as mother nature does it and not some designer.
When I first started working post-college, I had to figure out why our product was having compass bearing problems. During part of my investigation, I ended up calculating the B fields generated by the electric lines near our compass alignment shack. Turns out, the high electricity lines were not enough to interfere with the alignment process, even though they were practically next to the compass shack where we did this process. Having done the calculations myself (although not exactly the same as this next inference), I had serious reservations as to how a 4.5 billion year old spinning, orbiting rock could still have a magnetic field. Fact is, earth cannot have one unless we assume the field strength increased (not decayed) throughout most of pre-history. How is this science? It's not, but it must be assumed because after all, life on earth created itself, on it's own, without any non-natural outside influence and all "scientists" know this. In fact, evolution is a proven theory and therefore, if you do not accept this, you cannot be a scientist, nor work in science.
Well, it's a darn good thing I am an engineer and my designs have to work in the real world, not in some computer simulation or doctorial degree textbook. I'm obviously not a scientist, since I think evolution a fairy tale.
Let me leave you with a serious question, one that even RA danced around. How is SETI a legitimate scientific endeavor when scientists believe all order and all complexity in life, as we witness it today, came about in a completely naturalistic and undirected manner? That all life came from a single simple original life form. Basically, the SETI scientists are saying that if we capture an ordered radio signal from outspace, it must have been created by intelligent life. Yet at the same time, these evolution beliving SETI scientists, turn around and suggest that the simplest life form we have found, which contains many times more programming source code and data arrays than a 10 minute Youtube video, came about purely through Darwinian evolution.
Our side may have more than it's fair share of "pathetics", but any scientist who accepts both evolution and SETI as valid science is a hypocrite. If evolution is true, you cannot assume that intelligent life created an organized signal from outspace any more than you can assume that life is a prosuct of design.
You did and it was wrong for me to assume otherwise. Thanks for the reply.
LOL - I'd been reading it as a biblical reference (Revelations), but wasn't quite sure where it fit in. Now since I don't know who Wormtongue was, I'm even more confused.
>>Ive been informed that My reference to LOTR should have been Wormtongue instead of Wormwood. Not the first time Ive misremembered a name.<<
Wow. When I read that the first thought was JRR Tolkein and “that kind of sounds like Wormtoungue” - followed by “I better keep quiet - that’s a pretty nerdy leap” :)
I think you mean to support your understanding of how creation should have happened. Have you guys implemented a Christian test in yur hiring pratices yet? I'm guessing it's an unspoken clause.
Please read my second to last paragraph in post 1154 and explain why both evolution and SETI are science?
T'wit, if you're a Christian/Jew/other, he should be forgiven and you should ask the Admin to reinstate his account. I'm not sure he'd come back, but forgiveness is an obligation if you are going to debate on the evo/creo threads.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. I'd say most of the creationists we debate are YEC.
But again, the irrational fear to even discuss the notion of DESIGN IN LIFE is pervasive throughout academia and therefore any debate must be stamped out by those in academia. Do you deny this is what is happening?
I'm sensing bias. . . We have not found evidence of design. We have found plenty of evidence that complexity can evolve. We've also know that proposed irreducibly complex systems are not irreducibly complex. You're claiming evidence of design exists, but there is no evidence for that. The rule in science is to look for natural explanations. So far we have not run into anything that requires an unnatural explanation and suggests a supernatural designer.
I thought science is to be open to all possibilities?
Science is concerned with the observable. If we find something has no observable natural explanation, than that topic will fall outside the purview of science. We have not seen this to happen.
Having done the calculations myself (although not exactly the same as this next inference), I had serious reservations as to how a 4.5 billion year old spinning, orbiting rock could still have a magnetic field. Fact is, earth cannot have one unless we assume the field strength increased (not decayed) throughout most of pre-history.
First of all, earth is not a rock, secondly, the magnetic field has oscillated (switching directions) many many times in earth's history. I'm more interested in biology, so probably someone else could tell you more about that.
Well, it's a darn good thing I am an engineer
That's interesting. It's been noted that while many engineers are evolutionists, the scientists who are creationists are very frequently engineers, much more often than one would expect. I think there is an underlying personality trait, perhaps an interest in organization and design, that predisposes some people to both go into engineering and believe in a suopernatural designer.
Let me leave you with a serious question, one that even RA danced around.
To rephrase, you say that since life is complex and organized and is thought to have evolved, how can we assume a complex and organized signal from outer space is from an intelligent species rather than from a natural process.
I don't see how the two are analogous. Life is organized because organisms reproduce with variation, and natural selection weeds out certain phenotypes and promotes others. Since nonlife does not go through this process, we can't iteratively build a nonbiological complex signal from simpler ones.
Purely mechanical causes certainly are the first alternative considered (as science demands) when we note a signal from space. For instance, pulsars produce signals at regular intervals. The first pulsar was originally named LGM-1 for Little Green Men!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.