RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2007,14:22   

The recent comments list over at OW reads like an ID history timeline. Maybe that's what they would like to teach as history to the students they are outreaching to?

# Banging Stones Link
# cavemen were more advanced than modern scientists
# Willing To See
# Wishful thinking
# Table turning, etc.
# Possible disingenuity?
# Finding IC?
# Turning the Tables
# a vast arsenal of irreducibly complex cell components
# ultimately, though, we DO accept the supernatural Link

Also, since comment moderation was turned on, can we take that to mean that Patrick


9:36 am
A bunch of Darwinists are keen to point this out:

I figured I’d post it minus the usual insults.

approves of everything that now appears on OW?
In some ways, particularly given the rise of Darwinism, human societies were actually further ahead when they were living in caves and banging stones on each other's heads. At least back then they KNEW there was a designer and would have laughed had one suggested they bore any familial relationship to animals. Sure, they were all damned to #### because they were thousands of years from having a personal relationship to Jesus, but in their gut at least they knew they were special and knew that complex mechanisms required designers.
Poor cavemen, no personal relationship with Christ! It's ok b'cos Theologan TrouTMac steps in:
On a theological note, and from a Biblical standpoint, ancient man would have had salvation through faith in Christ just as we do… their faith looked forward to a promised messiah, while our's looks back.

But if we Listen To TroutMac we'll get ever so confused.
I'm very skeptical of the notion that humans EVER lived as the "stereotypical" caveman. So in one sense, I agree with you… ancient civilizations would probably surprise us with their technology, relative to the popular conception of that technology is.

Second, let me say that I personally tend to believe that the Earth is young. I might even believe that strongly enough to be called a "Young Earth Creationist."

Antarctica was mapped, at least crudely (by today's standards) during a time when it was largely free of ice.

And do you think Patrick has a postion on why "the usual insults" might happen to appear on a page near the one bring all those people's attention Dr Dembski's little oversight? After all, it's not as if other disciplines leading figures make fart animations about each other? Can you imagine Hawking or George Smoot (I dunno) trading flatulance based animations in public to better get across their point? Hmm. Why does ID have to stoop to those levels Patrick? Heh. Same reason your moderation allows comments like
You can literally win every single argument by invoking non-materialistic causes. That is why natural-materialism proponents are so against it. They do not like an idea that can so easily defeat their darwinist ideas.
And if these "people" are the best that ID student outreach programes can find (must be millions of $$ spent, that's what is on the tax forms anyway!), then I think I might be coming round to the "DNA is DEGENERATING" meme. Except it's a belief in ID that's doing the damage!

I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]