Here is the only one I have found
.JPG
)
Posted on 02/11/2005 9:29:29 PM PST by restornu
No, we need for the right not to make belief in one idea or the other a litmus test for voting. The last thing we need is for conservative voters to say, "He doesn't believe in Creationism! I'm not voting for him!"
I've seen all of mine in the last three months. I bother because I think that some who get sent away with a flea in their ear may have learnt something, and there is evidence in talk.origins that lurkers (and even the odd creationist poster) realise that when their preacher told them that, "that atheistic evolution is real bad" maybe he had no idea what he was talking about. And they come to understand that maybe those real persuasive arguments on ICR and AiG and DrDino aren't so good after all. Look through the t.o posts of the month and you will find plenty of creationists who have had their eyes opened and posted about it to share their experience. Here is one
LOL! DU is where most of them are right now ;)
Oh wait, you meant the other DU. Well, even in that case you're most likely correct.
RightWingAtheist once posted a link to their mumbo-jumbo-gobbledygook section where they discuss topics like Astrology, alternative healing quackery and other weird stuff.
Welcome to the festival that never ends.
Now perhaps you can appreciate why when faced with the same tired, worn-out, lame-brained arguments, the Evo's here on FR resort to ridicule instead of refuting them for the n(n+1) time.
At some point, one has to recognize that no amount of reason or evidence is ever going to change the minds of people who write the sort of things that you've just seen. "Belligerent ignorance" is a phrase someone around here came up with to characterize this phenomonon.
Why should we expect Stark to be any more honest than Ward Churchill?
That's one of the problems. Peopls with no regard for the truth. Stark lied. You said that doesn't bother you. OK. Why should anything either you or Stark say be considered reliable?
Give me one ID argument that wasn't first published in 1802.
And on a recent thread, from someone claiming to have a degree in biochemistry:
"Entropy is a catalyst for chemical reactions..."
Eh? What's your search algorithm? If it is hanging out in a few day's worth of these evo-crevo freerepublic threads, and refusing to follow any pointers to literature, let me suggest expanding the parameters of your search.
The fundamental problem with ID isn't that it's infeasable--it's perfectly feasable, it just isn't science, is all-- it's science fiction--which is why scientists rarely respond to proponents of ID, unless forced to by some credulous, undereducated community leader, that sits on a schoolboard of a school their children have to attend.
Many ID arguments are just fine, as arguements go (aside from the complexity arguement, which is just a bunch of arrogant preening decorated with some math). However, there is a big chasm between fine arguments, and serious scientific conjecture. Most ID arguments don't get answered by most evos here, most of the time, because they don't rise to the level of a serious discussion about our present gaps in knowledge, underpinned by serious data that can't be explained within the present paradigm far too easily.
The form of ID's fundamental theory creationists push--the supernatural theory--is a theory that proudly proclaims that if you don't know why something happened, you must conclude that a miracle occured.
Now, it's possible that that's right--science will never be able to disprove it--but what that is not, is an argument that a scientist can or ought to take seriously as an alternative explanation to TOE. It's not. It's not science and it never will be until we have video of God standing in a burning bush and clonking darwin on the head as he creates a whole new set of species with a whole new set of unrelated basic building blocks.
Until such time, trying to suggest that the IDers have put up these dandy arguments that scientists can't or won't answer because they are ignorant or surly, is to be misunderstand substantially what is going on. The difference in behavior is due to the monumental difference in the quality and rigorous underpinning of the evidence being vetted. Mastiffs don't chase off toy poodles that try to claim privileges that overlaps with theirs, they just ignore them.
"...My ignorance is my strength..."
Posted without a WHIT of irony or sarcasm by a creationist.
It's hard to have an honest discussion when you have to fight off the lies and false science reposted from the fake guru creationists' websites ...
We did get a retraction a few days ago when a creationists said whales developed lungs when they left the water ...
Here is the only one I have found
"Entropy is a catalyst for chemical reactions..."
Jeez - i don't suppose you'd accept that as a "figurative catalyst"?
"...My ignorance is my strength..."
Now, I remember this one although I don't think the quote is quite accurate (the sense is absolutely correct, though). I remember chewing on him about using his "God-given brain" or some such.
BTW, the Republican Party has a history of these guys. I remember quite clearly during the Nixon impeachment brouhaha a U.S. representative (from Indiana, I believe) saying (paraphrased), "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts". Except for your quote, I wouldn't have connected those dots.
Are we doing better or worse?
That's harsh. :-) Well, at least Stark hasn't claimed falsely to be Indian, as far as we know, and he does have a Ph.D., from a real university, not a M.A. from 'write your own transcript' U.
I've contacted the editor of TAE. I'm going to put together something a bit more comprehensive for the Dean of Social Sciences at Baylor; I'm sure they'll do nothing, but it's worth filing a complaint anyway.
I'm confused. At which DU is astrology being discussed?
That's what I'm asking you. Are they all idiotic?
Thansk for the links, I'll check it out.
Give that man a cigar. At least you admit it. You can articulate the type of errors you've observed and noted none that haven't fallen into them. You might actually be worth having a discussion with. Plus like your handle.
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.