Posted on 09/24/2009 6:08:52 AM PDT by 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).
All Bull.
Lets have the peer reviewed journal articles on these points.Show how each point is wrong showing the data and how the data backs up your hypothesis. Real scientific work.
Please read SOME textbooks on some of these fields so you have a basic knowledge first.
[[going on for too long for any argument based on “well they started it” to be a rational starting point.]]
And good news for you- that’s not my argument at all- I specifically stated that when someone brings petty and false accusatiosn tothe tasble- I WILL expose the false accusations and not let them simply go unchallenged
[[All Bull]]
Lol- All bull huh? Refute them then! Blah Blah Blah
[[Show how each point is wrong showing the data and how the data backs up your hypothesis.]]
we DID- As did the article writers which were cited- you apaprently slept through them all
[[Please read SOME textbooks on some of these fields so you have a basic knowledge first.
]]
Lol- We’ve got a great more basic knowledg than those who can apparently only stomp their foot and scream “All Bull!” I noticed you ducked out of those discussions and threads I listed quite early on after you found out peopel weren’t goign to have any of your ‘All Bull” Arguments lol- but whatever- the threads, science, evidences speak for themselves- your “All Bull’ Magic wand of dismissaal isn’t goign to work this time Spanky
[[That’s your opinion,]]
No sir- that isn’t opinion- that is flat out fact-
[[That’s a theological disagreement that’s been going on for centuries.]]
There’s no debate- God’s word is God’s word- If you don’t feel it is, then fine- just don’t expect Christians to beleive uyou when you say you are a Christian, or that you ‘beleive the bible’=- if that’s your position- There’s no ‘theological differences’ when it comes to God saying something, and someone not beleiving Him- that’s just flat out denial- not a simple ‘difference of opinion’ for crying out loud.
Hopefully never.
[[Show how each point is wrong showing the data and how the data backs up your hypothesis.]]
Tell ya what lovebug- You show how each point of Macroevolution is right, showing the data to prove lfie can escape the second law, how dirty chemicals can miraculously purify themselves without help from an intellignet designer’s design, how amino acids can make the impoissible leap to protiens on their own via simple mutations- How life escaped the limitations of upper prbability limits- let’s see the science- the data that backs up your position
Oh- and by the way- Radio Halos ARE peer reviewed and have stood the test of time and peer reviwed scrutiny for over 2 decades now, and chemical engineers are not capable of producing life out of non life- We’re tried and failed many times- The data more supports the NEED for an intelligent Designer than it supports the impossible scenario called Macroevolution- Have fun looking htose threads up- (Not that I expect you will- you’ll just continue whining about ID being ‘All Bull” lol)
First of all Evolution does NOT address how life started. It never has. Creves bring that up as a strawman.
What the hell do “radio halos” have to do with evolution?
And what the hell are they?
Bring up the points one at a time. Reference the journal articles backing your point (not magazine articles, FR threads, or bible passages). Then people on our side can bring up ours as a rebuttal. That is the way a civil debate happens.
[[Show how each point is wrong showing the data and how the data backs up your hypothesis.]]
This is how things are proven right or wrong in science.
I’ll be back on Monday. Tomorrow, I’m going hiking and then watching football and drinking. As a “atheistic liberal” I’m not going to church.
This refers to Robert Gentry's studies of Polonium Halos in granite. Gentry was a worker at, IIRC, Oak Ridge, who managed to get his results published in SCIENCE magazine. I studied this back in the day, in preparation for a debate with Henry Morris.
These halos are the result of radioactive inclusions of Uranium, and have a complex variability due to the various decay products. Polonium is an evanescent link in the decay chain, and Gentry claimed to have found pure Polonium halos, which were missing the traces of other decay products in the chain. This was taken by him to be evidence of Special Creation, because of the short half-life of Polonium.
Here's a refutation.
What does this have to do with evolution??
[[I’ll be back on Monday. Tomorrow, I’m going hiking and then watching football and drinking. As a “atheistic liberal” I’m not going to church.]]
I’ve NEVER referred to you as an atheist nor anyone else here on FR- not sure why you’re so sensitive about this?
[[This is how things are proven right or wrong in science.]]
You avoided the challenge- The point is that you can NOT provide ANY scientific evidence or data to show macroevolution, and yet you demand ID show data showing how God created species (which by the way, they do, as it’s much easier to show how somethign that is actually present comes about than it is to prove how somethign is assumed to have happened- given the fact that we weren’t there to see it happening ‘sometime in the past’ and hten later, have it stop altogether with no evidence left behind to show it ever actaully happened- this is what plagues Macroevolution- Evos claim it ‘happened sometime in the past’ and apparently stopped happening, leaving behind no evidence to study or test- Evos can noly make more assumptions, whereas ID’ists still have actual evidence to work from
[[Bring up the points one at a time. Reference the journal articles backing your point (not magazine articles, FR threads, or bible passages).]]
you can find htem online- Radio Halos aren’t too hard to find- Demski’s peer reviewed articles aren’t too hard to find- Nor are the peer reviewed publications of ID hard to find- By the way- Darwin’s hypothesis was never peer reviewed, pasteuer’s discoveries were never peer reviewed, nor were a great many other scientific discoveries- You like playing hte ‘peer review’ game- then youl ike moving hte goalpost stating that ‘it doesn’t count unless....’ When did the requirement becoem that only peer reviewed material coutns as science? and can be included in discussions about the viability or non viability of macroevolution? Many evolutionists won’t even touch the assinine claim that life could have violated the second law because they know how devestating the second law is to their hypothesis- and htey have stated so- but you won’t find any peer review article on life beign able to violate the second law- yet that is one of your side’s central arguments- that it ‘might have’-
So, if you’re goign to move hte goalposts, and demand that the only things that can be discussed are ‘peer reviewed’ articles, and hte only htigns that ‘count’ are peeer reviewed articles, that have been tested and that include experiment validation- then provide the peer review evidence and data showign Macroeovlution can violate the second law- did violate it, and left evidence of it which can be tested and confirmed- You wanna play the peer review game? Two can play your game- if you can’t prove life vioalted the second law with actual evidence and data- then by your own rules, you have no right even bringing macroevolution arguments to the table- IF you can’t prove life somehow purified hte dirty chemicals from which it suppsoedly got it’s start, with evidence and examples and data, then you, by your own rules set forth by you, have no right even suggesting life evolved- IF you can not show how code arose with data, experiments and evidence, then you have, by your own silly rules, no right bringing such arguments to the table- Gear up- If you’re goign to play your game- let’s play- I’ll demand that you drop your psuedoscience if you can’t provide any of thew above, and accuse you of the things you are accusing ID of
and btw- FACT is that ID IS peer reviewed- but because it doesn’t jive with your a priori bias, you can’t accept it and look down your nose at it claiming ‘it doesn’t count’- Well here’s a shocker- many scientific discoveries are not peer reviewed, and your little game falls flat on it’s face the same way Karl Popper’s goalpost moving ‘scientific requirements’ fell on it’s face- Macroevolution can not be falsified, tested, or predicted, yet it apparently is still accepted as ‘science’- while ID, which CAN BE tested, falsified, predicted, is ridiculed as ‘non sciecne’ even htough it meets popper’s bogus ‘requirments of science’ regarding origins
[[What the hell do “radio halos” have to do with evolution?
And what the hell are they?]]
They have everythign to do with the myth of Macroevolution and with creation- Go educate yourself!
[[First of all Evolution does NOT address how life started. It never has.]]
This is BS and you know it- it MUST invovle origins- the only reason you folks bring your silly claim to the table is because origins problems destroy your hypothesis- EITHER God created EVERY species uniquely, OR life emerged uniquely billions of times with species specific code- You can’t escape this problem by wavign away abiogenisis and claimign it has nothign to do with evolution
“But while evolution must be very adept at creating new codes, it must paradoxically also be unable to create new codes. The code must be frozen, otherwise it would not be universally shared amongst the species. So evolutionists must say that at one time evolution was adept at evolving the code, but later it became inept at evolving the code.
When did such a dramatic transition occur, and why? If the code is so difficult to evolve these days, why was it so easy to evolve back then? Again, evolutionists often appeal to the mythical chaos of early life to explain why the code was once so malleable. This brings us back to the tension between chaotic life forms and near optimal codes.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/origin-of-dna-code-did-evolution-occur.html
You link ot hte refutaiton was also refuted- Gentry’s discovery has stood for over two decades, and a site liek Talkorigins cna claim all they like that they ‘refuted’ Gentry- but the fact is that they haven’t- their ‘refutation’ has several problems with it- which they of course won’t tell you because htey know they haven’t infact ‘refuted’ anything- but htey do love to beat their chest and claim they have- they have an overinflated view of themselves I’m afraid
And just another point- Gentry’s discoveries have not been ‘peer review discreditted’- Soemthign Wacka seems to put a lot of faith in- so yeah- Gentry’s work stil lstands in peer review as valid despite sites liek Talkorigins and infidels.org claimign ot have ‘refuted’ Gentry- Scientists actually reviewing his work certainly haven’t been able to refute Gentry- but again- TO and other such sites do love beatign hteir chest after misleading peopel with their faulty ‘counter-arguments’ (which incidently have re-rebuttled elsewhere- somethign they won’t disclose to an unsuspecting public)
If you’re goign to list the ‘refutations’ at least list where those being criticised resond to the criticisms- Gentry defends hismelf quite adequately agaisnt the silly claism over on TO here: Evolution must involve origins http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
You’ll find several sites that have refuted and expopsed the error in what Talkorigins claimed here:
The collapse of ‘geologic time’
Tiny halos in coalified wood tell a story that demolishes ‘long age’.
http://creation.com/the-collapse-of-geologic-time
http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467
And:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=471
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
My comment about atheistic liberal is to your whole side.
Evolution is simply a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Nothing about how life was first created. No one knows. There are some guesses, but no definite proof.
You said that Macroevolution doesn’t exist. So to start the debate, present your side with real peer reviewed articles. Not the magazine articles GGG posts.
You are wrong on SO many points.
But I’m off to have a life. Walk out by the bay and then watch my team hopefully beat the other team’s head in.
[[My comment about atheistic liberal is to your whole side.]]
‘My whole side’ Doesn’t include me, so it’s not ‘my whole side’ now is it?
[[Evolution is simply a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.]]
Bravo- you’vwe just described microevolution
[[Nothing about how life was first created. No one knows. There are some guesses, but no definite proof.]]
so then, you must apparently beleive that by your own goalpost moving rules and regulations- the study of macroevolution isn’t science then, but rather psuedoscience (the term you love giving ID and creationism)
[[You said that Macroevolution doesn’t exist. So to start the debate, present your side with real peer reviewed articles.]]
The lack of evidence speaks for itself- no peer review articles are necessary- there is a compelte lack of evidnece which shows macroevolution- furthermore, what evidence does exist shows that nature is incapable of producing new non species specific informaiton necessary to bring about macroevolution-
[[You are wrong on SO many points.]]
What a brilliant indepth refutaiton- Congratulations- you’ve singlehandedly proven macroevolution is possible debunked ID and Creationism with nothing more than a broad-sweeping hand wave- Well done!
[[But I’m off to have a life. Walk out by the bay and then watch my team hopefully beat the other team’s head in.]]
Grab an extra beer or shot and celebrate singlehandedly refuting ID and creationism with the devestating statement you made of [[You are wrong on SO many points.]]- you’ve earned it- your mind must be quite exhauted after that brilliant and indepth disection- Hope your team wins- that’ll be two significant victories for you in one day- Be careful though, synapse overload can lead to bizarre behavior- don’t burn any cars or tear down lightposts if they win
[[But I’m off to have a life. Walk out by the bay and then watch my team hopefully beat the other team’s head in.]]
I’m goign to play golf- But as Twain said- Golf is a ‘good walk spoiled by the game of golf’ or somethign to that effect lol
Submitting that in the context of political activism amounts to establishing an official religion.
And good news for you- that’s not my argument at all- I specifically stated that when someone brings petty and false accusatiosn tothe tasble- I WILL expose the false accusations and not let them simply go unchallenged
You'll take issue with any arguments that disagree with you as being "petty and false".
[[You’ll take issue with any arguments that disagree with you as being “petty and false”.]]
No sir- don’t be putting words in my mouth- I’kl take issue with any petty and false accusations- period- the evidneces speak for themselves, and when people make petty and false calims that are contrary to hte evidences, I’ll expose them- pretty simple
[[Submitting that in the context of political activism amounts to establishing an official religion. ]]
What the H e double hockey sticks are you goign on about ‘political activism’ for? Thish as nothign to do with what we were discussing- IF I hire someoen to write a book for me- word for word- the Way God said He spoke through the prophets and writers, and someone later takes and twists my words, and denies that I said what I said- and htinks that the writer of hte book was mearly writing his own opinions down isntead of directly takign dictation, then those folks are calling me a liar- questioning my authority on the work as being my own- and that sir is not ‘differences in opinion’ they are flat out denials- those dojign so to God’s word are flat out denying that His word is hte Holy spirit inspired word of God just as God said it was, and are in denial about many key issues, and have gone so far as to twist God’s word to mesh with hteir denials- this isn’t ‘different opinions’ or docrines- this is mutilation of God’s word and denial- You want ot talk political activism? Because it are those who do these things to God’s word that are twistign hte Word for political reasons-
I missed the post where he trashed him.
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.