Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Of course you’re free to believe that “For myself I do not suppose that when God commanded the Oceans the (sic) bring forth life that God was limited to supernatural means to accomplish this task.”
However, I trust you understand that this is a statement of FAITH, and not of science in the observable, repeatable, verifiable sense.
Let’s call evolutionists what they are: people of extraordinary faith.
Agreed.
100 years from now, no one will even remember what “public schools” were.
You never set up someone on FR for me to debate, “pedigreed” Scientist or otherwise.
‘Not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist, but present the data I will engage it.’ was not backing out, it was setting ground rules. Nothing can be accomplished by sourcing a scientific study to someone who concludes a priori that the scientists are engaged in fraud.
However it is nice to see you admit that your “no response” line was another lie. My last line on the subject was “if you have data present it and I will engage it”; yours, nonsensically, was “put up or shut up”.
However what would I “put up”? I accepted a challenge to debate, I did not agree to arrange to handhold your prechosen Scientist (write a letter to them in Australia, say)to get them signed on to FR or to challenge THEM to a debate.
I accepted the challenge and set the ground rules, you never presented a Scientist for me to debate signed on to FR with a presentation of data to debate.
But if you have had a “pedigreed” Scientist who you want to debate me, and claim that you have expended effort to ‘set up a debate’ I think at a very minimum you might...
a) get them signed on to FR
b) have them challenge me to a debate.
You have done neither.
I however, just as in January and June, stand ready to debate JUST AS SOON as you get a “pedigreed” Scientist signed on to FR to issue me a debate challenge.
But no doubt in six months or so after once again never getting a Scientist on FR to debate me you will once again try to claim I “backed out” of debating.
This would be a good time for creationsists to make up their minds.
You can’t assert on the one hand that no one can know what initial conditions on the earth were like, then turn around and say that current research conditions are too extreme for the initial conditions on the earth.
There are at least 4 planets in our solar system that easily meet these criteria. I remind you that Dr. Deamer’s area of research is astrobiology, as it says in the first line of GGG’s post.
I would also like to point out that creationists have always claimed that life can’t have self-organized under any conditions. The fact that components of life can be found to self-organize at our current atrocious state of scientific knowledge is significant.
Over the next several hundred years, this area of research will grow beyond our current comprehension, according to God’s design.
I guess my motivation is simple. These Crevo threads can be very intense and always bring passions from both sides.
I’m trying to gage wether the feelings on both sides are strong enough for people to alter their presidential votes, like say pro-life v. pro-choice positions would.
I should have phrased the questions better. I don’t believe that many people want evolution totally out of schools. If they do, that’s a little extreme. So I guess it comes down to teaching just evolutionary theory or evolutionary theory with other theories also presented.
So Freepers out there, is this a litmus-test issue? Maybe we should start that question as a thread.
For me:
Pro-gun (you get my vote) Anti gun you don’t
Pro-military - yes, anti - no
Pro Life - yes , pro choice no
Pro Creationism/ID , anti evolution - I’ll let it slide if you’re solid on everything else.
They never came on FR because YOU BACKED OUT OF THE DEBATE.
Just admit you pussed-out and be done with this silly exercise. The more you try to deny the obvious, and the more you falsely accuse me of being a liar, the more I am going to rub your face in the HARD EVIDENCE that you turned-tail and ran.
“‘blah blah blah’ = ‘somebody just got pwned’
-— yeah. right. as if “arguing” with creationists is worth anyone’s time. Their beliefs won’t be changed no matter the mountains of fact one presents, so it’s not worth it. I just pop into these threads ever year or two to see what idiots still populate the creationist throngs among us and then move along to more intelligent conversation.
My “blah blah blah” sentiment means, “Yeah, I know, I’ve read all this a billion times before. Now I’ll go back to the real world where real science is making a real difference.”
I see twisting the facts is your specialty. You had just backed out of the debate with my scientist, and then you tried to get me to agree to “present the data” instead. I then called you on it and demanded you debate my scientists or shut the heck up. You didn't reply. What else was I supposed to conclude? But now here you are pretending that it was me who failed to deliver. You are as delusional as Darwin (which means you have completely lost touch with reality!).
You realize, of course, that Scopes was forbidden by law from teaching evolution, and that he lost the case?
Louisiana bow has a law specifically allowing alternatives to evolution. What do you think they will teach as an alternative? What specifically would you teach?
Moreover my last response, both in January and then again in June when your baseless accusation resurfaced, was ‘present the data and I will engage it’; showing a perfect willingness to debate DATA not CONSPIRACY.
So what exactly did you tell Dr. Duesburg after his confused little e-mail to you about not knowing what FR was?
Did you say.......”he said he wanted to debate data and wasn't interested in debating someone who was going to say all scientific evidence he sourced was the result of fraud.”...possibly?
And then Dr. Duesburg said what?....”Well if he denies that it is a conspiracy there is no reason for ME to debate him”???????
How exactly did that one go down. I am interested! Did Dr. Duesburg follow the line that you are apparently following that because I said I am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist that this meant I was not interested in debating Dr. Duesburg? Thus making Dr. Duesburg nothing more than a conspiracy theorist.
I know you have problems with logic so let me lay it out for you.
A) I say I WILL debate, but am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist.
B) You conclude I am backing out of the debate because in your consideration Dr. Duesburg is a conspiracy theorist and “it is fraud” is the only tactic he will employ during the “debate”.
==If me setting the ground rules that I was not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist was interpreted by you as “backing out” is that not a tacit admission on your part that your “pedigreed” Scientist was only going to engage in conspiracy mongering?
From my final reply that YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO:
“I offered a debate between you and one of the thousands of scientists who officially question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The debate was going to be focused on the science of AIDS alone. You accepted the debate and then backed out...put up or shut up.”
Are you really so mentally challenged as to think you can twist the plain words above to imply that I wanted you to debate a “conspiracy monger”? Do you make it a habit being this fast and loose with the facts? If so, may I suggest you have chosen the WRONG (alleged) PROFESSION.
Well, then, I suppose that they should have no complaint then when people file counter lawsuits to have THEIR rights take precedent over everyone else's.
The minority may have the right to have their viewpoint represented as well, but that does not mean that they have the right to suppress all other viewpoints.
That makes them class A hypocrites; complaining about others forcing the majority view on them, all the while being more than willing to force their minority view on other and forcing the those others out.
Of course, they still have the option of starting their own evo only schools, homeschooling, or opting their children out of the section that they don't want their kids to hear. But that would be too considerate or mature a course of action. Instead they have to selfishly demand that everyone do it their way and no other.
Interesting how the natural world can't help but align with the Word of God, isn't it?
It's almost like God is sovereign or something. ;-)
That explanation is no more empirical than the origin I proposed. Both are philosophically-based. Neither is empirical. Do you understand?
I understand that an increased mutation rate of a bacteria under stress can generate increased genetic variation.
I understand that increased genetic variation can increase the chances of the bacteria surviving because some of that variation will produce new proteins that enable the bacteria to better handle the stress.
I understand perfectly!
As far as empiricism. It is am empirical observation that bacteria increase their mutation rate in response to stress. It is an empirical observation that an increased mutation rate within a population will generate increased genetic diversity. It is also an empirical observation that some genetic alleles are better than others at overcoming a particular stress.
Thanks for the understanding! I knew you would eventually come around once you realized that bacteria increase their mutation rate in response to stress in order to increase their chance of survival. :)
Dover: eleven parents sued the school district. Georgia stickers: five parents sued the school district. metmom had framed the lawsuits about creationism in the classroom as a denial of parents’ wishes; I was just pointing out that the lawsuits were, in fact, expressions of parents’ wishes.
I’m sure some were, but I see you conveniently left out the Georgia ACLU case. No one can seem to come up with striking Christmas from the school calendar as a concerted effort by PARENTS.
And it still doesn’t address the fact that a handful of minortiy godless parents everytime they get offended by God or Christians run and sue to silence or censor. Metmom makes a good point, why don’t you simply opt out?
Why doesn’t Michael Newdow simply NOT say Under God in the pledge?
Why is it when Christians simply publically exercise their rights, this automatically means they’re infringing upon yours? I don’t understand this because there seems to plenty of room for eveyone, everyone’s beliefs...????
And you keep referring us to the Thomas More Law Center.
>>>>>>Yes, I think it’s time people understand the tipping point is BEHIND us now....the godless liberals set up the rules for all of us and now decent normal people who are tired of having the world around them hijacked and redefined by godless angry liberals have finally had enough! Legal help exists for helping people with those sneaky tactics by the Georgia ACLU threatening legal action with NO parental notification for instance.
I see that the main item on their Web site is a story about how they successfully filed a lawsuit against a school district on behalf of someone who wanted to mention God in the classroom. Do you have an intellectually consistent explanation for why that suit wasn’t HIJACKING the court system, but those other two lawsuits were?
>>>>> You’re serious?
First you have to understand there was indeed a time when God was welcome in school. Schools weren’t perfect but they weren’t the utter chaotic FAILED messes that they are now! It wasn’t even that long ago, frankly. Even when prayer was attacked and removed, it still took several decades for the full effect to be realized. And the NEA wasn’t yet hijacked by godless liberals. And political correctness wasn’t yet fully born either.
OF COURSE it’s different because this country was once a country where people weren’t afraid to say Merry Christmas in public, or display nativity scenes, or mention a Judeo-Christian God in ALL public realms including schools.
As I said, godless liberals made the rules, it’s just that now Christians have been forced to play by them, but are now more fully engaged. I suspect you’ll now begin to see TMLC and the ACLJ and most likely others begin to go on the offensive in some cases. As opposed oi stopping the bleeding and tying up all resources on the defensive, they’ll see the need to FULLY ENGAGE and begin tying up the ACLU with their very own tactics.
Eventually, it could even be that prayer will return to schools, Roe v Wade will be overturned, and creation will be taught to the EXCLUSION of evolution and the reason will be 100% because of godless liberals, blowback and resisting their nonsense!
I’ve said many times before, EVENTUALLY the SCOTUS will FINALLY have to address this culture war nonsense that wastes taxpayer money, is UN-American, and ties up our courts with incessant God-hate.
Sooner or later we’ll have a final word explaining God and Christianity is part of our culture, has always been part of our nation’s heritage, WILL ALWAYS BE and godless liberals with all their hang-ups will simply have to get over it already!
I can’t think of any other group that’s so easily offended and has to hijkack the law to run an end around society in this way. One would think they had better things to do or be offended ABOUT!
And as for a supernatural spirit that doesn’t exist in the first place, or that’s just a fairy tale; godless liberals sure do spend virtually their whole being resisting Him, fighting Him, keeping Him out of their reach and so on!
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.