Posted on 10/23/2007 5:53:57 AM PDT by js1138
There's been some complaining on the original thread about hijacking, so I'm offering a chance for you guys to continue the debate without all the distracting comments. I'd suggest not pinging anyone until the debate is finished.
Here's a rcap of the debate so far. The first argument is in brown; the reply to part one of the first argument is in green.
==There are no men in Black Robes setting down dogma for the Temple.
You are correct. They wear White Robes...and they are quite open about setting down dogman for the temple. Either tow the party line or face the consequences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8sN1UngFY&eurl=http://www.uncommondescent.com/
“everyone is in on it”
“mud animated by lightning”
“believe in God creating the universe or the universe and life are from totally random forces”
“they are hiding something”
“warn others before it is too late”
‘this information is dangerous! leave right now!’
“FIGHT THIS BATTLE? ANYONE? ANYONE? Beuler?”
What a sensationalist piece of garbage. A “Bowling for Columbine” for the Cre/I.D. credulous.
Politicians imposing doctrine on Science class, and burning murals that depict ideas they do not like, and then perjuring themselves under oath, and offering a Creationist book where ‘Creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ were swapped out. And putting this to a stop, and voting these people out of office is being part of the ‘Church of Darwin’? What a crock.
I will let the movie speak for itself. Can’t wait to go see it! But I couldn’t resist your equation of Ben Stein’s “mud animated by lightning” comment with “sensationalist garbage.” Behold the words of your fearless leaders...LOL!:
“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found.”
—Charles Darwin, Letter to J.D. Hooker Febuary 1, 1871
“...We go to a chemist and say...fill your head with formulae, and your flasks with methane and ammonia and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and all the other gases that a primeval nonliving planet can be expected to have; cook them all up together; pass strokes of lightning through your simulated atmospheres, and strokes of inspiration through your brain; bring all your clever chemist’s methods to bear, and give us your best chemist’s estimate of the probability that a typical planet will spontaneously generate a self-replicating molecule. Or, to put it another way, how long would we have to wait before random chemical events on the planet, random thermal jostling of atoms and molecules, resulted in a self- replicating molecule? ... we’d have to wait a long time by the standards of a human lifetime, but perhaps not all that long by the standards of cosmological time....even if the chemist said that we’d have to wait for a “miracle”, have to wait a billion years - far longer than the universe has existed, we can still accept this verdict with equanimity. There are probably more than a billion available planets in the universe. If each of them lasts as long as Earth, that gives us about a billion planet-years to play with. That will do nicely! A miracle is translated into practical politics by a multiplication sum.”
—Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
OK, since you’re not hiding anything. Do you think students should be allowed to be exposed to the debate between Darwinism and Intelligent Design in our publicly funded science classrooms? Do you agree with denying tenure to silence science professors who advocate Intelligent Design?
"Intelligent Design" is religion trying the old Trojan horse trick. Everyone knows that, but a few still try to deny it.
Do you really think that religion belongs in science classes?
Are you aware of the difference in methodologies between the two fields, or, like Behe, are you willing to stretch science so far that it includes astrology and religion, as well as magic, Ouija boards, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, and who knows that other stuff?
Either science sets and follows its own rules, or religious zealots set those rules for science and science as we know it is destroyed. You can't have it both ways.
As a YEC, you have admitted you deny any science which disagrees with your religious beliefs -- and that includes almost all of science.
And with your particular posts, you have advocated defunding science just to get rid of those fields which study evolution.
Sorry, you have lost any credibility you may have had. You are pushing pure apologetics, and advocating the destruction of science.
Have you found any actual examples of cr/id papers that were submitted to science journals and were rejected? Do you have the correspondence between the authors and the editors and reviewers?
If you can't produce a single example of the alleged phenomenon, maybe it really doesn't exist.
No, it's strictly a debate between various sects of Christianity and various sects of Islam, and as such, it should be debated in Madrassa or Sunday school.
To be discussed in science class it would have to be science.
It is interesting to ponder the fact that evolution became dominant long before there was any gov't funding of research.
Your posts are at odds with each other. On the one hand you assert that ID should not be allowed in the classroom, and then in the same breath you demand proof that IDers are discrimated against. What a laugh. If you want proof, Yahoo! is but a few keystrokes away. Or better yet, go watch Ben Stein’s EXPELLED.
==No, it’s strictly a debate between various sects of Christianity and various sects of Islam, and as such, it should be debated in Madrassa or Sunday school.
No, the debate is between those who see evidence for Intelligent Design and those who think life was created by Darwin’s brainless natural selection god.
The Trojan Horse trick is being played by evolutionists who try to pretend that their blind-faith in Darwin’s natural selection god is somehow secular and non-religious. They are either complete liars, totally deluded, or both.
==Are you aware of the difference in methodologies between the two fields, or, like Behe, are you willing to stretch science so far that it includes astrology and religion, as well as magic, Ouija boards, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, and who knows that other stuff?
In your case, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are totally delusional.
Wrong again. With the exception of national defense, I want science completely turned over to the private sector (just like I want education turned over to the private sector). Public funding of science actually hurts science. As one science writer once put it, public funding of science has resulted in an explosion of useless data, enforced consensus through peer review (in which one’s competitors get to decide if one gets to publish or get grants), centralization of science policy, subsidized biotech industries, pharma monopolies granted by the FDA, not to mention a growing epidemic of scientific fraud due to high stakes publish or perish requirements. Serious cuts in government funding would not only slow the pace of meaningless data collection, it would also allow scientists to ponder the data more carefully...something sorely lacking in today’s scientific climate.
Not allowed in the science classsroom. It's perfectly OK in, say, rhetoric or psychology classes.
... and then in the same breath you demand proof that IDers are discrimated against. ...
What I've asked for several times is evidence that they aren't allowed to publish in normal scientific journals. None has been provided.
You: No, the debate is between those who see evidence for Intelligent Design and those who think life was created by Darwin’s brainless natural selection god.
Still, it's a debate between various religious sects. It's not a scientific debate at all.
I see the evoultionists are still playing their same games.
In the case of c-m, putting words in your mouth, ascribing motives to you, and creating strawmen at every turn.
And in the case of v-a, more strawmen and false accusations.
These adherents of evoultionary beliefs and the methods they employ are hardly scientific, nor do the content of their arguments carry any sceintifc weight.
A google of ‘intelligent design papers science journal rejected’ yields 1,030,000 articles {for intelligent design papers science journal rejected. (0.19 seconds}
Here is just one piece out of just one of those 1,030,000 articles.
http://creationwiki.org/Creationists_are_prevented_from_publishing_in_science_journals
Dr. Jerry Bergman has documented not dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of genuine scientists being abused for their belief in Scientific Creationism/Intelligent design. Some teachers have been fired just for teaching the two model approach. Around 12 percent of those interviewed received death threats because of their views. Jerry Bergman: The Criterion (Onesimus publishers, 1984)
Robert Gentry, He tried to get his work into Nature (which he did in his later years, after toning down the creationist conclusion) it was rejected because of “wild speculation,” and it was “unworthy of publication.”
One of the judges even told him that he, Gentry, would have a better chance to get his work published if he removed the “absurd” conclusions.
All this shows is that Archaeopteryx was a mosaic and that God does not play by the rules of the modern classification system. Given that some created kinds seem to have gone extinct, is not surprising to find animals with traits we now define as belonging to different groups. None of this changes the fact that Archaeopteryx was a bird.
This is something of an understatement. Four out of five known kinds of mammals (not species, but kinds) are extinct, and apparently all the mosaic groups are extinct. Pity.
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.