Creationists Given Academic Credit for Trolling

Via LGF ^ | 8/10/09 | Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

[xcamel]

William Dembski, the “intelligent design” creationist who is a professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, has some rather interesting requirements for students of his creationism courses — 20% of their final grade comes from having written 10 posts promoting ID on “hostile” websites: Academic Year 2009-2010.

Spring 2009

Intelligent Design (SOUTHERN EVANGELICAL SEMINARY #AP 410, 510, and 810; May 11 – 16, 2009)

NEW! THE DUE DATE FOR ALL WORK IN THIS COURSE IS AUGUST 14, 2009. Here’s what you will need to do to wrap things up:

AP410 — This is the undegrad [sic] course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

AP510 — This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God — for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

[CottShop]

[[where the ester link is understood as “R-O=O”, “R” is the AA link and “O” is the abbreviation for oxygen. Even the Miller-Urey experiment originally intended to support the premise of abiogensis fell apart on the oxidation point.]]

Not only that- but hteir intelligently designed experiment, had to carefully isolate their created amino acids from the very energy which ‘created’ them in the first place- not to mention, they had to isolate left hand amino acids from right hand, as the two in proximity would immediately destroy each other

[[”Heredity”? “Natural selection”? Something without predicate information, nor a plan to specify the information, nor evidence of even the simplest notochord is now credited with making self-designed “choices” as to “selection”?]]

Yep- Nature- the ‘all natural’ intelligent designer which is capable of anticipation, science violating acts of miracles, and the ability to create metainformaiton out of nothing but simple dirty chemicals (which somehow, miraculously purified themselves as they evolved into species- forget the fact that nothing in nature is capable of purifying chemicals, but pfffft- Who needs facts when the hypothesis sounds so cut?)

[[There is a biochemically programmed expectation within them to recognize flaws and to repair them.]]

Woopsie- informaito n theory strikes again- This info apparently just assembled itself out of, once again, dirty chemicals (oh, and it assembled itself, and created the ability to forsee the future and code for possible species specific problems that might crop up later- again- Aint Nature amazing?)

[[Will you now also attribute some sort of an innate sentience to ribosomes too?]]

Sure- why not? Nature is the little miracle worker that we ‘just don’t understand yet... but one day we ‘might’

[Wacka]

This site is not a scientific reference. This is an opinion site.

Scientific evidence.

Your side (tpanther) wants a civil debate. It is up to him to start the process.

The evolution side puts up scientific evidence all the time. Your side dismisses it without anything to back up their view.

I am about as liberal as Palin. I wanted Fred Thompson for President.
Anybody that doesn’t follow your narrow (number of adherents) view is a liberal atheist to your group.

A proud Catholic (that means Christian too).

[CottShop]

[[This site is not a scientific reference. This is an opinion site.]]

[[The evolution side puts up scientific evidence all the time. ]]

for crying out loud Wacka- you can’t even form a coherent argument- first you claim this is nothign but an ‘opinion’ site- then you turn right aroudn and claim evolutionists present scientific evidnece’ Cripes- GGG presents scientific evidence ALL the time- there are MANY scientific articles presented here on FR which REFUTE macroevolution. the articles ARE scientific- but once again -you IGNORE the science , and simpyl attack those that respond to the scietnfitic article- per usual- you aren’t itnerested in ‘civil discussions’ you and your ilk are ONLY itnerested i nattackign the messengers and anyone that comments on the scientific articles- There are myriad articles on here discussing hte biological, chemical, natural, and mathematical impossibilities of Macroevolution- but you and your ilk REFUSE to even discuss them- preferrign instead to zero in on those who present hte scientific articles- As I said- either look htem up for yourself or shut up

[[A proud Catholic (that means Christian too).
]]

You’ve NEVER answerecd the question Wacka- Have you asked forgiveness for your sins and accepted Christ as your Savior for forgiveness of your sins? Or are you just putting your faith in ‘being a good catholic’ in the mistaken beleif that beign a member of a church wil lget you to heaven? Only htose who are born again wil lenter heaven as explaiend By Christ Himself- and the way to be born again is to bring your failing before the Lord Christ Hismelf, and askign Him to forgive you and to be your Lord and Savior- it’s a personal one on one meeting between you and the Lord- it’ws not soemthign you earn through ‘good works’ lest any man should boast!

[CottShop]

The Bible says:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
-Romans 3:19-24 (NIV, emphasis added)

[CottShop]

Life isn’t a ‘probation period’ whereby we must ‘prove to God that ‘we’re trying’ to be the best we can be’. we CAN know for sure that we are goign to heaven, but we must come to the feet of Christ and throw ourselves on His mercy and ask His forgiveness for our sins- once we do, ALL our sins, past present and future, are forgiven (note, this does NOT give us free liscence to sin as we please- we will still be judged for our sins, but we will NOT lose our salvation if we do sin).

God offers an unconditional pardon- a compelte pardon for sins- BUT we MUST be willing to accept it- We can’t earn it because hte bible tels us that there are NONE that are righteous- not one! e are compeltely seperated from the righteousness of God because of sin- and hte only way to break through that barrier is to accept the complete pardon offered through hte righteousness of Christ’s pardon. There are many ‘religious’ folks who are goign to completely miss the mark because they have never accepted Salvation throiugh Jesus Christ- instead, they rely on their ‘good works’ and hteir infant baptism to garner God’s favor with htem- in other words, they are attempting to work their way to heaven- God’s word clearly states that salvation is a gift from God- NOT an earned payment!

Salvation isn’t a ‘journey toward perfection’, it is an act of surrender, a once for all act, where we throw ourselves at the feet of Christ and admit that nothign we do will ever be righteous enough to gain our entrance into heaven- nothing- except acceptign Christ as Lord and Savior.

God offers you and I HIS rightousness so that we can be righteous as He is righteous. Sin and righteousness can NOT coexist in heaven, and God has provided a way for us to become compeltely righteous. We tend to downplay our sinfulness, thinking it’s no big deal, but hte fact is that God’s Holiness demands that we be made completely righteous through the blood sacrifice of Christ- We can’t ‘earn’ this righteousness through ‘being good’, because once again, the bible tells us there are none that are righteous before salvation- not even one person- EVEN those who are the ‘goodest of the good’- the ibble tells us that even these folsk are not righteous.

“Nevertheless, God, and only God, has solved the enigma He Himself has disclosed. God has sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect sinless life, to qualify as a perfect sacrifice, to obtain a perfect redemption so that God reconciles Himself to man. This reconciliation is wrought through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on behalf of ungodly sinners; and the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to them through faith. This great exchange of Jesus Christ doing for sinners what God demands of sinners is called the Substitutionary Atonement.

The Gospel is the Good News that the righteousness of God has now been revealed. It is a righteousness of God that satisfies His own righteousness in order to receive sinners into His presence. God has solved His own eternal deterrent. In doing so, God has exhibited the sinfulness of Sin, the Perfection of His Nature, the Solemnity of His Justice and the Mercy of His Love. In a way inconceivable to man, God has demonstrated His Glory to a universe of spectators and satisfied a host of heavenly demands of which mankind knows very little.

All those who take the righteousness of Christ as their own, through faith in His finished work at Calvary, shall be reconciled to God and there shall be no condemnation for them. Any attempt to possess heaven under any other terms is strictly forbidden and accursed. God’s righteousness alone, to be had by faith alone, in the perfect sacrifice of Christ alone, is matchless. It is the singular Gospel given to men by which they must be saved! O sinner, flee to Christ. Take His righteousness as your covering for eternity, lest you perish. [R.M. Zins]

http://www.cwrc-rz.org/salvation.php

[tpanther]

proof of what...what’s the question wacked?

[Wacka]

First, I get forgiveness when I go to confession and I don’t have to accept Christ as my savior again because I did that as remaining a Catholic after my baptism as an infant.

Who put the bible down in writing? The RC Church.

Who was the first pope? Peter, Christ’s disciple.

I don’t have to be “born again”. I was born once and that’s all I need to go to heaven.

I believe that all the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, animists, Wiccans, etc, and even atheists that live good lives will go to heaven. They will find that their view was incorrect, but they will be there.

Believe what you want, but don’t force other people.
___________________________________________________________

Now onto science:

What GGG and his group post here is religion masquerading as science. Put his threads in the religion forum (where there are a lot of threads with discussion of the Roman Catholic religion), and we wouldn’t be on here.
I’m talking about using this site as a reference in an argument. It is NOT a valid scientific reference.

GGG posts creationist MAGAZINE ARTICLES, not a reviewed journal where original experiments are done, reported in detail with results and conclusions are drawn from the data presented. What he posts are usually incorrect reviews of real journal articles with opinions sometimes used as references, with a paragraph tacked on the end that god did it (with no proof that he did).

On the few times he does actually cite real articles (his favorite seems to be Project Encode related papers) he lacks the education in the field (which he admits) to correctly understand the papers.

Again I ask, your side asked for a civil debate. It is up to you (your side) to show your scientific evidence first. We are waiting.

[Wacka]

That macroevolution doesn’t occur- CottShop’s post #134

[CottShop]

[[Believe what you want, but don’t force other people.]]

LOL- first of all- I beleive God’s word, and when He says that we must be born again- I beleive it- Secondly- Golly- Hope I didn’t twist your little arm too severely?

[[I don’t have to be “born again”. I was born once and that’s all I need to go to heaven.]]

mmmm Hmmmm- Better read the book the RC church translated because oyu’rew flat out wrong- woudl be a pity to have gone all through life and miss the mark when the gift of salvation was so free and freely available to you but you refused God’s gift- but whatever-

[[I believe that all the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, animists, Wiccans, etc, and even atheists that live good lives will go to heaven.]]

Then you certainly do NOT beleive God’s word- not sure what ‘religion’ you practice, but it certainly isn’t the one God speaks of in His word

[[They will find that their view was incorrect, but they will be there.]]

Yeah- judgement day is goign to be a real bummer for a lot of ‘religious people’

[[First, I get forgiveness when I go to confession and I don’t have to accept Christ as my savior again because I did that as remaining a Catholic after my baptism as an infant.]]

Tell me- did you understand that Christ died for your sins and that YOU needed to ask for forgiveness and salvation when you were an infant? No? Didn’t htink so-

[[GGG posts creationist MAGAZINE ARTICLES, not a reviewed journal where original experiments are done, reported in detail with results and conclusions are drawn from the data presented. ]]

Bzzzt- Wrong! blatant lie!- Those articles include scientific research

[[On the few times he does actually cite real articles (his favorite seems to be Project Encode related papers) he lacks the education in the field (which he admits) to correctly understand the papers.]]

Bzzzt- wrong again- He shows quite an adequate understandign of what hte science is stating- What you really mean is that GGG doesn’t agree that the biologically impossible hypothesis of macroevolution happened, like you do, so therefore, He ‘couldn’t possibly be right’ right?

[[Again I ask, your side asked for a civil debate. It is up to you (your side) to show your scientific evidence first. We are waiting.]]

Again- FR is full of myriad examples- knock yerself out

[[What he posts are usually incorrect reviews of real journal articles with opinions sometimes used as references,]]

Bzzzzt- Wrong again! What he posts exposes the scientific IMPOSSIBILITIES facing macroevolution- You can wave it away and pretend GGG and others ‘don’t understand’ the evidence, but hte evidence IS clear- I have yet to see you or other evos address ANY of the actual issues, and all we EVER get fro myour crowd is ‘Nuh Uh- you just don’t understand’ That isn’t a refutation of the evidences- that’s just simple bias masquerading as an ‘argument’- Here’s a thought (not that you’ll ever concider it because apparently your understanding of hte issues is inept at best) Debate the3 issues- and end the silly accusations- point out WHERE the evidence is wrong, why it is wrong- and when you do so- show actual evidence that shows what you claim is true and that nature did somehow manage to violate several key scientific principles- Dirty chemicals can NOT give rise to metainformaiton- period- this isn’t opinion- this is simple fact- Dirty chemicals can NOT purify themselves, this isn’t opinion, this is demosntratable fact- Nature does not have the means to provide metainformation- fact, not opinion- on and on it goes- Amino acids can not produce protiens- never been observed, can’t be demonstrated- fact- not opinion

“”There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

To understand this Biblical term, it is necessary to understand that there are TWO BIRTHS. The “first” birth is the PHYSICAL BIRTH when you were born into this world from your mother and father. When the Bible speaks of being “born of water,” it is speaking about the physical birth (NOT baptism). The “second” birth is a SPIRITUAL BIRTH, which means to be born of the “Spirit” (God’s Holy Spirit). This raises a couple of questions: Why does a person need to be born spiritually?...and, What is a “spiritual” birth?

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Notice, God said they would die “the day that thou eatest thereof.” Interestingly, Adam and Eve DIDN’T die physically the day they ate the fruit and disobeyed God’s command. The reason is because they died SPIRITUALLY. Sin had entered the human race. The Bible teaches that from Adam until present time, mankind has been born spiritually dead, inherited down from Adam’s sin. This is why humanity MUST be born-again. This is only possible through the Holy Spirit of God, which makes us alive again (quickeneth the Bible says) by faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior. “

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

Woops- there I go again- ‘forcing’ you to beleive what the bible says- Golly- life must be rough eh? Hope I didn’t twist your arm too hard lol

[Wacka]

Crickets from the creats on the science. All religion posted, no science.

From my view, it appears that your view of god is that he is a mean one, fooling man all the time.
It appears to me that if one doesn’t believe exactly what you say they should, one will not go to heaven.
It appears to me that you believe that all the scientific proof of an old earth and universe and evolution was put there by god to fool us.

Why should he want to punish and fool us?

[CottShop]

[[Crickets from the creats on the science. All religion posted, no science.]]

Already posted on FR- have fun looking them up

[[From my view, it appears that your view of god is that he is a mean one, fooling man all the time.
]]

‘Fooling us’? How so?

[[It appears to me that if one doesn’t believe exactly what you say they should, one will not go to heaven.
]]

Psssst- it’s NOT ‘how I say’- it’s how GOD says in His word- Baptism comes AFTER a person acknowledges their lost state, confesses their sins, and accepts Christ- There was NEVER any infant baptism in the bible- none- Infants are incapable of acknowledging their lost condition- Baptism is a statment BY the one being baptised, that they are saved-

“(1) The Bible does not mention any babies or small children being baptized. (There is no record of infants being baptized in the Bible.)

(2) The word for “baptize” in the original Greek means “to immerse” in water.

(3) The Bible says that those who believe may be baptized. Since infants cannot understand, and therefore cannot believe on Jesus Christ, baptism must then be for adults, or at least for those old enough to understand. It must not be for infants. Also, Baptists believe that baptism plays no part in salvation itself.

http://www.baptistcatholic.com/

so no- it’s not ‘how I say’ people shopuld be saved, but rather how the Bible- God’s word says they should be- Ye must be born again Jesus said to Nicedemus- Was He lying to Nic? No man cometh to hte father but by Christ’ Was Christ lying hten too? Salvation is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man shoudl boast- Was He lyign there too?

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Perhaps you have heard someone say “there are many ways to God”. This is a very popular claim but it is simply false. There is only one way to God, and that one way is through Jesus Christ, God’s Son. All other ways will lead you to judgment by God for your sins, followed by punishment in the eternal Lake of Fire.

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

[[It appears to me that you believe that all the scientific proof of an old earth and universe and evolution was put there by god to fool us.]]

there is NO proof of an old earth- only assumptions (that quite frankly IGNORE evidneces refuting old age earth- so no- I don’t beleive old age earth assumptions

[[Why should he want to punish and fool us?
]]

P{ssst- it aint God fooling you- it’s man with their ASSUMPTIONS that have done so- Age dating methods are based solely on assumptions NOT science fact

[BrandtMichaels]

Your premise is backwards therefore your results will be as well. God will let you fool yourself all day long if your motive is to deny God and wallow in your sin. On the other hand if you start with a premise of seeking truth and examine the evidence supporting the Bible then you will be overwhelmed by how awesome and amazing God’s work truly is. BTW He claims in His Good Book that creation is all the evidence you’ll ever need to conclude His existence.

But the question remains are you willing to change your premise and make a sincere attempt to find the evidence for God? The best place to start is the Bible but here is another site that explains the wonders of creation from a Biblical perspective:

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[Wacka]

Looked at the first few pages of your link. No science. Links go to a book about creation by an engineer. No peer reviewed papers in there.

The Roman Catholic Church is perfectly compatible with evolution and the big bang.

[Wacka]

Show PROOF that they are wrong assumptions, and which specific assumptions are they.

[BrandtMichaels]

The 1st third of this online book refutes evolution systematically. Point after point proves how illogical macro-evolution is, how utterly inconceivable the jumps in logic from true science into ideology. The site is full of science and references both for and against - you simply refuse to acknowledge the depths of your own misunderstandings...

Come back in a few hours or days - after you given the site more than a cursory review.

[Agamemnon]

Who put the bible down in writing? The RC Church.

Who was the first pope? Peter, Christ’s disciple.

I don’t have to be “born again”. I was born once and that’s all I need to go to heaven.

I believe that all the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, animists, Wiccans, etc, and even atheists that live good lives will go to heaven. They will find that their view was incorrect, but they will be there

Wow, tpanther and CottShop, just reading what Wacka-mole doesn't know about what it means to be a Christian or the history of Christianity and the bible in general makes one wonder all the more about how little he likely knows about anything he ever chooses to comment upon at all -- particularly as it pertains to topics that have anything to do with the study of science.

If he is the Christian he claims to be maybe he can back up his allegedly "Christian" beliefs with a Scripture reference or two.

He clearly knows nothing about the Christianity he claims he believes and still less about anything resembling the study of science!

He whines about the presumed difference between "magazines" vs. "journals," implying that somehow one is by definition superior to the other. Buy a clue Wacka-doodle: a magazine is a magazine and a journal is.... a magazine!

Of course, while it is becoming increasingly obvious to readers that he has failed to ever read a science-based magazine more sophisticated than, say, the "Highlights" he thumbs through while waiting for his pediatrician to summon him in for his routine cheer-leading physical, or to comprehend the contents of what is contained in a presumed rarefied "peer reviewed journal," one would not expect him to know....

But speaking of his unction for presumption maybe if he'd like to comment on the presumed wonders of what passes for accuracy and credibility in today's "peer reviewed" literature, he'd like to start here with this "peer-reviewed journal" entry:

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, August 5, 2005.

If that version is too difficult for him to digest, or he finds it "too scary," the puréed peas and baby carrots version may be found here:

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" New Scientist 30 August 2005, Kurt Kleiner

Whack-a-way!

[xcamel]

And they wonder why its so damned hard to get through a freepathon nowadays...

[GodGunsGuts]

Excellent find, Agamemnon! It certainly put the opinions of fallible men in perspective, no matte what the discipline!

[GodGunsGuts]

Excellent find, Agamemnon! It certainly put the opinions of fallible men in perspective, no matte what the discipline!

[Wacka]

Still waiting for some scientific proof (a book by an engineer on creation biology is not proof).

I am being civil and stated my views and get my religion and my scientific background (A PhD in Molecular Biology, by the way) ridiculed.

Mighty Christian of ‘ya.