Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
I said I was ready to go then in January, so long as it wasn't conspiracy mongering, I said I was ready to go again in June. I say so again here in September.
Still nothing from you as far as a prospective debate opponent other than a segment of e-mail from a confused Dr. Duesburg and the address of some Creationist in Australia.
My application of importance to crevo is way beneath this culture war forced onto Americans by godless liberals.
I’m not a Bible-thumper, I’m a Christian that struggles through life like anyone else. But you almost have to be in a coma to see there’s INDEED controversy around us. And it’s so much larger than just crevo...it’s a battle in virtually ALL public realms at this point.
Godless liberals trying to rewrite history and redefine our country and our culture with this incessant ‘separation of church and state’ PC idiocy.
When the Federal holiday Christmas is offensive, requiring legal action to remove it from school calendars, then a thinking person would understand there’s something DEEPLY wrong.
IN FACT, I see what’s being done to this country from WITHIN is far more damaging to us than outside forces.
And FR has done a great job at exposing these dangers.
Censorship and suing Christians into silence, attacking God etc. really isn’t something I foresaw as a kid growing up or even as a young adult for that matter. It astounds me everyday how much Americans have allowed.
I remember gays coming “out of the closet” and I could care less what people do in their homes, but it seems now...only the Christians are “allowed” to do what’s been plainly unoffensive since our founding, ONLY behind closed doors. Keep our beliefs to ourselves in church on Sunday “where it belongs” and meanwhile militant gays are on our open streets in this country breaking laws, with no regard for themselves let alone children...
we now have NAMBLA which blows my mind that this is even allowed to EXIST at all... and slowly incrementally as decent normal Americans sit around indifferent like frogs in boiling water, it gets worse every year to the point between generations it becomes unrecognizable.
To the point NOW they’ve actually succeeded in hijacking one of our major political parties and things like partial birth abortion are part of their “core beliefs”, along with gay marriage, pretty much anything that undermines the America of my youth. More accurately, the right things about America from my youth.
Gay “marriage”...50%+ divorce rates, depravity, failed public schools have been a few of the many results.
Lastly, demanding God be out of science, indeed public schools coupled with censorship just isn’t conservative. It’s just not. Anyway you slice it.
Although I do understand a rational person that is SOLELY interested in the science can disagree, I just find this is the case about 2% of the time.
My own belief is that evolution is theory, Darwin was a capable person that had useful ideas that have been ****SURPIRSE***** hijacked by too many people angry at God.
My position is let there be debate. PERIOD. When a person has an idea it sickens me that they’re shouted down, sued or lectured by pseudo-intellectuals blabbering “that’s not science” as if ONLY atheists know what science is, much less they’re interested in the science in the first place!
whattajoke
But in answer to your question, I’m not a single or even several issues voter. I do however think this next election will be perhaps as important when it comes to SCOTUS appointments as anything else that this next president may do for better or worse, we’ll see.
The republicans vs. democrats reminds me of an old saying: My worst day fishing is better than my best day working.
Not a big fisherman, but...there’s simply no comparison. The hypocrat party has been transformed beyond anything intelligible.
Perhaps you missed that class on the scientific method ...
Saying “God directed random mutation” in Science would be as ridiculous as a book giving advice on gambling telling you “God wants you to draw on this inside straight”.
>>>>>WHY? If God isn’t confined to science as we understand it AND understanding the human mind is as limited as it is...
I can’t see how that’s any different than say...a big bang, and life formed under just exactly perfect conditions and out of pri-mordial soup life began and eventually over ga-jillions of years....from salamanders to apes WE finally got us, with no purpose whatsoever.
Yup....their dog still won’t hunt. When creationism was allowed in school, we didn’t exactly morph into a Theocracy back then now did we?
The Constitution, unfortunately for you. If you file a lawsuit because you feel your rights are being trampled, and you win, it doesn’t matter how many people are on the other side. They have to behave in a way that doesn’t violate your rights.
>>>>>>>What a perfecct example of just how utterly failed liberal godless schools are when a person sees the purpose for the Constituion is so that the Michael Newdow’s of the world won’t have to hear about God.
You proposed a debate on the thread “One step forward, one step back” about AIDS. It is obvious from the beginning that your intent was to take any objection about venue or topic was going to be your excuse to accuse the other party of backing out and ‘being afraid of the truth’.
I said “sure why not” but raised my objection about conspiracy mongering. You told me to “put up or shut up”. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to “put up” other than my willingness to engage the data as soon as you signed on your scientist or posted any and you had already got things going with js1138. So I let stand my willingness to engage the data but not conspiracy mongering.
This is you writing to js1138 about his very real concerns about how the debate would be conducted.
GGG to js1138; allmendream; Ichneumon: Sounds like a copout to me. Jim has already told me that while he doesn’t want to run an official, moderated debate, we are free to run our own thread. I am still trying to convince him to allow for a moderated debate, but it’s not looking promising. BTW, I am setting up the same thing re: global warming. Do you know any scientists who would be willing to debate a well known scientist taking the CON position re: human caused global warming (and who, btw, maintains that the earth is actually cooling)? You have nothing to fear from the debate on AIDS, except perhaps, the truth. If you are not up to the challenge, just admit it and be done with it.
Post#200 posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 9:15:01 PM by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945222/posts?q=1&;page=226#226
Me talking to GGG: Sure, why not?
Post #167 posted on Saturday, December 29, 2007 6:29:29 PM by allmendream (me supposedly agreeing to multiple debates some of which GGG isn't sure if he even remembers)
GGG talking to js1138: Again, if you wish to decline, feel free to do so...just be open about it. Allmendream has also agreed to the proposed debate, and I still haven’t heard back from the all-knowing Ichy. Either one of them would be fine. And if you can find a scientist with yet better credentials, all the better. Post#205 posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 9:30:45 PM by GodGunsGuts
js1138 to GodGunsGuts:
Ping me when you have a venue.
210 posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 2:42:05 AM by js1138
Whatever happened to that debate? I was so looking forward to it. Did you ever ping js1138? Why didn't you get anybody qualified to debate Science signed on in all that time?
.....idiots still populate the creationist throngs among us and then move along to more intelligent conversation.
>>>>>This from one that demands intelligence not be allowed! LOL
Saying “God directed random mutation” in Science would be as ridiculous as a book giving advice on gambling telling you “God wants you to draw on this inside straight”.
>>>>>WHY? If God isn’t confined to science as we understand it AND understanding the human mind is as limited as it is...
I can’t see how that’s any different than say...a big bang, and life formed under just exactly perfect conditions and out of pri-mordial soup life began and eventually over ga-jillions of years....from salamanders to apes WE finally got us, with no purpose whatsoever.
As I suspected, your position isn't intellectually consistent. You're all for your side filing lawsuits, but when what you perceive as the other side files lawsuits, they're hijacking the courts. Got it.
FR is not a suitable site for a debate. There was an attempt to have a debate on evolution with DaveLoneRanger. It turned into a typical thread with all kinds of side arguments that completely swamped the debate itself.
A debate is between two parties. You cannot have a debate on a site that cannot control who posts to a thread.
Even more amusing, after the DLR debate, Dave's opponent was banned. So much for site integrity.
I believe that may be the same thread in which GGG argued against the ERV evidence.
Perhaps you missed that class on the scientific method ...
>>>>>>>Not at all...it’s just that when I had that class, the teacher wasn’t a godless liberal that whined “THAT’S NOT SCINECE” when a student dared question Darwin.
I see what the problem is: you think this is just about competing opinions. It's not. Creation is pretty clearly not just a viewpoint, it's a religious belief. Religious beliefs have certain protections, but they also have certain restrictions when they intersect with governmental activities (like schools). Your beef isn't with "evos," it's with all the courts that have decided that using class time to promote a religion in public schools violates the Constitution. Your argument boils down to the idea that some people who are offended by violations of the Constitution should just shut up and go away if they're in the minority. It doesn't work that way.
Also, unfortunately for you, the courts have seen through the attempt to disguise creationism as "intelligent design." (Frankly, it wasn't a very good disguise.)
Evolution, on the other hand, is not just an opinion. It's a scientific theory. It might be wrong, but it's still a scientific theory. Now, there is a way to get intelligent design into science class: do the work necessary to make it a theory. Come up with hypotheses about what exactly the designer did, and how, and when, and conduct experiments to confirm the hypotheses. Amass evidence that points to a designer--positive evidence that shows the designer's actions, not just holes in competing theories. Then we'll talk. I won't hold my breath.
In the meantime, sure, file counter lawsuits to have creation taught in public schools. Should be fun.
Nope...the way I see it, the godless liberals have set the table, and now we’re merely playing the game.
In short, you no longer ‘got it’.
Its purpose is also so that Brad Johnson's students do get to hear about God. Unlike you, my respect for the Constitution does not diminish when it protects people I disagree with--it goes up, in fact.
Ya think?
>>>>>>>Not at all...
Then you surely know that there is MUCH more to science than just a debate. Perhaps that is how you got your science grade, by debating it?
I really doubt that any teacher would say that if a student questions Darwin. After all, scientists have been questioning Darwin for decades. It is when one stands up in a science class and declares the earth is only 6000 years old because I read it on some creationist website that a teacher might say "That's not science".
I see what the problem is: you think this is just about competing opinions. It’s not. Creation is pretty clearly not just a viewpoint, it’s a religious belief. Religious beliefs have certain protections, but they also have certain restrictions when they intersect with governmental activities (like schools). Your beef isn’t with “evos,” it’s with all the courts that have decided that using class time to promote a religion in public schools violates the Constitution. Your argument boils down to the idea that some people who are offended by violations of the Constitution should just shut up and go away if they’re in the minority. It doesn’t work that way.
Also, unfortunately for you, the courts have seen through the attempt to disguise creationism as “intelligent design.” (Frankly, it wasn’t a very good disguise.)
Evolution, on the other hand, is not just an opinion. It’s a scientific theory. It might be wrong, but it’s still a scientific theory. Now, there is a way to get intelligent design into science class: do the work necessary to make it a theory. Come up with hypotheses about what exactly the designer did, and how, and when, and conduct experiments to confirm the hypotheses. Amass evidence that points to a designer—positive evidence that shows the designer’s actions, not just holes in competing theories. Then we’ll talk. I won’t hold my breath.
In the meantime, sure, file counter lawsuits to have creation taught in public schools. Should be fun.
WOW, talk about intellectually inconsistent!
It’s been demonstrated time and again, and proably on this thread too, that the rejection of God is also based entirely on faith. Since you can’t DISprove God, be it via science or anything else, this belief is also based entirely on faith and is hardly scientific!
And again, HIJACKING the Constitution is the question here, HARDLY violating it...moreover interpreting it in an atheistic way will eventually be addressed IMO.
As fully demonstrated, it’s not about the science...some if not many of the very same people stomping creation out of science classes are the very same godless liberals hijacking the Constitution to disallow Christmas on school calendars, crosses in town logos, 10 Commandments out of courtrooms, etc. etc. etc.
Ignoring that and putting your hands over your ears and humming really loud won’t make any of these realities go away either!
And I know it’s a difficult concept to grasp but Christians have access to lawyers and courtrooms also. If believers were capable of organizing religion, rest assured we’re more than capable of organizing a defense!
Indeed some of us weren’t so hopelessly brainwashed by public schools as to believe that Christians weren’t the ones responsible for virtually all the freedoms ALL citizens enjoy in the first place! History books may have been re-written but enough people are still around to recognize it!
I suspect that because enough aren’t willing to just set sail on boats to get away from tyranny this time, you’ll indeed get your “entertainment”!
From science class, to history books to law...as I said, enough is enough!
If it might be wrong, then believing that it's right and teaching it that way puts it in the *faith* category itself.
And if it's not right, and not truth (as science is not about truth anyway), it might as well be in the *opinion* category cause that's about how reliable it is.
At that point, there's no more basis for teaching evolution in schools than creation.
Just because something is passed off as *scientific* doesn't mean that it is inherently more reliable or more worthy or deserves to be taken more seriously than any other reason. Evos just think that it does because they think that they're right.
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.