Posted on 11/02/2009 8:38:34 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Castle Rock, Colorado—Despite the first major snowstorm of the season, and unrelenting efforts by malicious Darwinists to prevent people from registering, a huge crowd of around 1,000 people showed up Friday night to hear Dr. Stephen Meyer present the DNA evidence for intelligent design based on his new book Signature in the Cell. Meyer, Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and myself are in Colorado to speak at the Legacy of Darwin ID Conference sponsored by Shepherd Project Ministries. On Saturday, Michael Behe will present the evidence against modern Darwinism from his books Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution; David Berlinski will talk about The Devil’s Delusion and The Deniable Darwin; and I will talk about my book Darwin Day in America. Any fair-minded person in the Denver-Castle Rock-Colorado Springs area who still wants to come is welcome to purchase tickets at the door on Saturday morning starting at 8:15 am. The conference is taking place at the Douglas County Events Center. As of tonight, the malicious jamming of the Shepherd’s Project website seems to be continuing. Not content to suppress free speech about Darwin’s theory in schools and colleges and the media, some Darwinist vigilantes are now apparently even trying to stop intelligent design proponents from speaking at private conferences. Fortunately, their suppression tactics don’t seem to be working!
Also the Templeton Fund supplied a fair proportion of the cash so I understand the ID folk not being represented. But they simply wanted to join the discussion, not shut it down or restrict it in any way.
There was never anything profane in any of my posts. Go ahead and post it here in the News / Activism forum and let the public decide if it was simply a case of borderline "potty" language or a mortal sin as you suggest.
Please do so in order that all can read their response. But I really don't think you'll do that. What I think you will do is continue with “vile, rude, shrieking, illogical,” etc. because I showed where your “Myth” story was wrong.
And these were what ?
Meaning what did the malicious Darwinists do to keep people from registering ?
If that is what you choose to believe it won't be much different than many of your other belief based conclusions. The only thing you showed was your complete lack of the facts. There was no "story" only the publication of quotes from Professor Darwin's autobiography and corroborating documents. You are free to hate the man and his message, but resorting to falsehoods does you and your cause no good. So tell you what, if you promise not to publish more Bovine Scat (there I go again with another potty language reference) I promise not to have to correct you.
Well, at least that’s good for a parting laugh. Thanks!
GGG,
Have you abandoned this discussion ?
What did the malicious Darwinists do to keep people from registering ?
Or was that just hyperbole ?
“So nonsupport equates to censorship?”
.......not only that, liberals make their christian taliban comments just because conservatives and Christians don’t roll over to the cultists and their tactics.
Incredible...wrong on so many levels. Especially the draw dropping "if your priorities are right".
It is not the states responsibility to properly educate your children, it is yours. The state only offers a low cost, low quality option. It is not the only option.I am certain that anyone with a desire and a willingness to sacrifice can have their children home schooled, or privately or parochially educated. Start by making a list of everything you spend your money on and then identify those that are more important than your children's education and future. Chances you can get by with a whole lot less "if" you are willing to make the sacrifice.
Thanks for making my point for me. Secular humanist NEA types shouldn't dictate curriculums with taxpayer money. Parents should have input as to what is taught. Instead it's a govt own bloated beuaracracy interested only in security of teachers and liberal executive types.
The state only offers a low cost, low quality option.
Low cost? For the results vs cost ratio it's perhaps the very most expensive cost to this society in general.
Should, but don't for a number of reasons. Foremost is that most parents can't be bothered. Most parents believe that the responsibility for educating their children lies with the teacher and the school system. Most parents have no idea what is in the text books and lecture notes their children bring home. Most parents are perfectly comfortable with receiving federal and state money for their school districts regardless of the strings. Most parents can't name a single Board of Education member for their district or name the principal of the school their child attends unless they have had to deal with him/her regarding a disciplinary issue.
I’m on FR often but rarely chime in.
Just had to respond to you since you go by the moniker “Natural Law”.
The Theory of Evolution (if true, which it isn’t) violates to following Natural Laws:
1. The Law of Cause and Effect (Any effect must have a greater and pre-existent cause)
2. The Law of Biogenesis (life can only come from life)
3. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Energy can not be created or destroyed)
4. The Law of the Conservation of Matter (Matter can not be created or destroyed.)
5. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy)....please spare me the “open system” argument.
Out of the following 4 statements, one has to be true:
1. Matter and energy do not exist.
2. Matter and energy are eternal.
3. Matter and energy spontaneously generated into existence.
4. Matter and energy were created.
#1 is falsified by observable science....we observe matter and energy every day.
#2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Scientists admit this by positing the Big Bang theory)
#3 is falsified by the Law of Cause and Effect and the Law of Biogenesis
That leaves us with #4......Matter and energy were created.
Can I prove that scientifically? No. However, all other options have been falsified by Observable science and Natural Law.......hey wait a minute, that’s your Screen Name!!!
I do appreciate intelligent and constructive comments and feedback. I am a proponent of Thomistic Philosophy as it relates to Natural Law. As such all is predicated on existence of God. It affirms the compatibility of Science and Scripture as both being authored by God.
As for evolution I am a believer in Intelligent Design. Evolution is only the process, created by God, by which God introduced and guided the life and the ascent of Man in a dynamic universe. Some on this forum consider my position blasphemous and offer shrill and insulting arguments against it. I put my faith in God, not them.
“Should but don’t for a number of reasons.”
But still should never the less.
And it’s sad, society in general can’t be bothered, not just with this, but letting the govt ru(i)n their lives as well.
It’s bad enough schools are indoctrination centers for secular humanist liberalism, but look at the results in virtually every other aspect!
I see Jay Leno has kept some of his old late night aspects along with the time switch such as the Jay Walking segment but watching a snippet of “real Atlanta housewives” on his show last night and the one woman answers Jays question:
What state is named after King GEORGE...and she didn’t know and his clue was “YOU LIVE THERE” and she answered...
“Atlanta”?
It’s just staggering.
So again, why shouldn’t the parents that DO care not be heard?
But unless or until you get enough like minded parents involved so that elections and Board of Education meetings become too damned hostile for the secular humanist activists to impose their will your only recourse is to educate your children outside the public system. There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost attempting to leverage your childrens education and future to make a political point and no solice in telling them coulda, shoulda, woulda years from now.
“I do appreciate intelligent and constructive comments and feedback. “
I do as well. One of the reasons that I post so infrequently is the acid-tongue responses from some on this forum who can’t make a lucid argument so they insult someone who is.
“As such all is predicated on existence of God. It affirms the compatibility of Science and Scripture as both being authored by God.”
I totally agree.
“Evolution is only the process, created by God, by which God introduced and guided the life and the ascent of Man in a dynamic universe.”
I need to ask you a couple of questions:
1. How do you handle Jesus’ words in Mark 10:6? He obviously says man and woman were created “at the beginning”. If evolution is true then Jesus is lying or wrong....either of which would cast doubt on all of scripture.
2. Creation by death (which is what evolution really would entail) is incapatible with the character of God. How do you explain that.
“Some on this forum consider my position blasphemous”
My take is that you are wrong.....on what do you base your belief that God designed and created by the use of evolution?
As long as you are civil in this discussion, I’ll hang in there with you. If the flames come out this discussion will be over.
As a believer in Intelligent Design I believe that God's plan, from the beginning, was to create man and woman. I do not have a problem with God's patience or process He used. Jesus also spoke to those not yet born, is there any difference?
Creation by death (which is what evolution really would entail) is incapatible with the character of God. How do you explain that.
I rationalize that as being no different than believing that my parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. had to live and die so that I could be born.
Hey NL - You said this previously:
“I am a proponent of Thomistic Philosophy as it relates to Natural Law. As such all is predicated on existence of God. It affirms the compatibility of Science and Scripture as both being authored by God.
If your philosophy “affirms the compatibility of Science and Scripture as both being authored by God” you have to account for what the Son of God said in Mark 10:6.
If Scripture is authored by God and He is by definition omniscient and the author of truth....then how do you explain what Christ said in this passage?
Your own philosophy would have to consider it a refutation of the theory of evolution.
“Jesus also spoke to those not yet born, is there any difference?”
Not sure what point you are making here.....help me out.
“I rationalize that (Evolution’s use of death as a tool to create) as being no different than believing that my parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. had to live and die so that I could be born.”
They didn’t have to die for you to be born, they had to live. As well, they didn’t have to die to “create” a new species.
I stand by my argument that it is not God’s character to destroy innocent life in order to create.
Food for thought.....
Information Theorists have, for all intents and purposes, destroyed the supposed mechanism of evolution. Evolutionists say that Natural Selection acting upon Random Mutations account for all of the species we see today.
Observable science has shown that mutations actually result in less genetic information, not more. (sometimes they are information neutral but NEVER has there been an observed mutation that results in an increase in information.)
Natural Selection, by definition, chooses from information that already exists. By observation then, a mutation will result in less information for the Natural Selection process to choose from.
To extend that logically.....all of the information for every living thing on the earth would have had to have been in that first cell that Science tells us magically formed itself out of a primordial mud puddle that they can’t possibly know even existed.
Blessing NL - Looking forward to your reply.
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.