GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Texas Teach @ July 06 2014,18:56) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 06 2014,01:13) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ July 05 2014,15:08) | Robert Byers responding to Gary over at NCSE:
| Quote | I'm unaware of these issues you bring up but aMEN to a big tent and amen to creationist thinkers who advance mankinds understanding/knowledge/wisdom in nature etc.
Indeed with biblical presumptions i think greater accomplishment could of been and could be now done in everything.
Bad ideas like evolution hold back biological discovery and possibly healing. |
Link
Gary, do you feel even a little dirty getting support from a YEC (not to mention a misogynist, racist POS like Byers)? Are you really so desperate for acceptance that you would ally yourself with anyone? |
I don't recall reading anything racist or misogynist unless you count valuing "traditional marriage" as some kind of crime. For me it's just making sure to cover a topic on the rise of the sexbots issue with long term commitment filled reality that puts dolled up household appliances in their slutty place.
When all evidence is on the table funny but true material "writes itself" that someone like Robert Byers can like too. All this adds to the slow but steady scientific progress being made by "creationists" on account of ID theory being the source of what's working for them in science. Looking back to the Kansas board of education hearing has Kathy Martin waving back while academic critics roll their eyes because there is nothing unscientific about what ended up in classrooms as a result of the escapades. That is real history involving what happened during the term of an elected official, which was already handed down to their children and grandchildren where that is part of the local legend/folklore of Kansan culture. Having a success story Robert is thankful for too instead of Kathy and her district being defeated and disgraced is something I don't at all feel dirty or guilty by having participated in. Science loves that sort of thing, so for the sake of science I had to anyway. |
Let's look at a sample of Mr. Byers' posts, shall we?
| Quote | | The directer here is Jewish and this Jewish presence stands in the way of a movie industry that balances the nations beliefs. |
Link
| Quote | As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don�t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters. |
Link
| Quote | Feminism has always been a evil attack upon the rights of males. Its not been a attempt to allow humans to get anything despite identity.
women were meant to help their husbands goals on earth,. Therefore its not right that women try to achieve but as a social contract we can allow it.
There are no womens rights but only people rights and then citizen rights. The men never had to give women rights we didn�t mean them to have. Its a fraud. |
Link
That's all just from the most recent Uncommonly Dense thread. What do you think now? |
The film industry was long dominated by Jewish movie legends, geniuses. Betty Boop and The Three Stooges were about Jewish culture coming of age in the US melting pot of cultures.
There is nothing new about people wanting to see themselves being expressed in media. Mass communication and the internet age has made it possible for all to be in the mix. The old problem of only a few places making movies and providing news was solved by a new problem where we now have an internet information overload and some culture shock.
I'm not exactly sure what they are saying about immigrants but where “common consent on these matters” prevails not even the “white” (which includes many Hispanics) in the US would want to “have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority”.
Not all woman want to have to become a company CEO or famous in science. Some want to get married and raise a self-sustaining family in a farming community like their mother did where there are cows to feed and other chores that they don't need a PhD in physics to figure out. They already learned what they need to know while growing up at home and from K-12. Men who would rather their wife not be expected to compete for an academic type job just to meet expectations of society and survive in a two person economy have good reason to say enough is enough with the thinking that all girls must grow up to become a Mary Tyler Moor or they failed in life. If that is what a girl wants after high school then that's where they need to be able to achieve but not all have to want the same thing.
You are making too much of an issue over things that do not pertain to science or pertain to the NCSE article wondering what I was responding to which is: does it follow that belief in a six-thousand-year-old Earth was “a central part of Christianity” in their day [b]and is now “the traditional position of Christianity on this topic”?
I explained what in science is now “a central part of Christianity” that does not care how old the Earth is it's from being there first with scientific ideas that help usher in world-view changing concepts new to science teachers. What gets taught in the science classrooms is then a non-issue. There are self-assembly demonstrations instead of what was there before that found ways to make the concept religiously divisive. With Kathy Martin proudly photocopying it around there was no way for others to compete with that view of what self-assembly is. In Kansas it was easy for teachers to stay out of trouble with “creationists” and had weird science fun in it where you just have to not mind Kathy being Kathy, just be thankful it actually does get their public schools ahead of the curve and looking good in education. In this way all the teacher related information with a religious slant was made gone, and none since.
Scientific related accomplishment like this becomes religious folklore that is then “a central part of Christianity” where leaders are someone like Kathy Martin. Future followers don't want their history to read that their church and followers were disgraced by academia and they now live in shame for the past. They want it to be known that they don't have anything to be ashamed of and they did in fact help accomplish something educationally historic for their public schools to be proud of. The Theory of Intelligent Design still doing well is like icing on the cake. Christianity goes on as always with Genesis still a respectable theory in regards to human origins, just have more insight into how things can “poof” into existence not “evolve”.
What happened in Kansas and elsewhere does not change what is central to the religion like as much as possible stay in spirit with Genesis when developing scientific theory, but is “a central part of Christianity” by being what happened since the old days that attempting to argue against science being used to discredit religion. There was not enough information back then to respond with scientific theory that explains the phenomenon of “intelligence” instead of “evolution” and other possibilities that make arguing over the age of the Earth unnecessary. Ether way the date span goes the same things happened in between. Dwelling on details that do not much matter misses all else happening that is getting Robert where they want to go, that have already been said and done and matter much more than what really doesn't, as much as you think.
Seeing "ideas like evolution" being bad is to me a yearning for better than that too. I see nothing inherently bad about that. It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets. Achieving that goal only requires scientific theory and for another phenomenon that explains another way, they like better. What Robert Byers is saying pertaining to "evolution" is being made a situation where it's personal preference between theory for that phenomenon or for phenomena pertaining to "intelligent" that explains how living things work in another scientifically possible way. I very seriously expect their dissing of your theoretical model to end up having been somewhat foreseeing, in a funny sort of way. I don't mind their way of coaxing such a thing along.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
