RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 245 246 247 248 249 [250] 251 252 253 254 255 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:24   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)
Quote
And no, I can't come up with anything better than that. That's it.


WOW..  That's what I thought.  It's purely meaningless except in regard to seeking ultimate truth.  

It has no impact on a scientist's daily routine other than if he starts up a conversation about his thoughts in regard to truth and the meaning of life.

FTK you are as impermeable to evidence and reason as you are clueless. And sister, that is an enormous amount.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:26   

Oh, hey, here's an interesting question.

PZ provided this statement in regard to Vox's post about his invitation to debate PZ:

 
Quote
Wait -- I complain about the absence of intelligent arguments for God, and Vox Day pops up his little pin head and squeaks about miracles and bleeding statues and liquefying holy relics?

Vox, you don't qualify. You're a pathetic little twerp with delusions of grandeur.


Now, I ask you...  Do you find that Vox said anything remotely close to that in his post.

Hmmm...don't ya think a retraction is in order?  Compare this to the little hissy Lou had over my words in regard to Genie.

I will await for someone of integrity to say a few words on this matter.  Thanks. :)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:27   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,14:19)
Quote
And no, I can't come up with anything better than that. That's it.


WOW..  That's what I thought.  It's purely meaningless except in regard to seeking ultimate truth.  

It has no impact on a scientist's daily routine other than if he starts up a conversation about his thoughts in regard to truth and the meaning of life.

But I'm right in assuming that you really really like the tornado in a junkyard argument, right?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:27   

Quote (Louis @ June 09 2008,14:24)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)
Quote
And no, I can't come up with anything better than that. That's it.


WOW..  That's what I thought.  It's purely meaningless except in regard to seeking ultimate truth.  

It has no impact on a scientist's daily routine other than if he starts up a conversation about his thoughts in regard to truth and the meaning of life.

FTK you are as impermeable to evidence and reason as you are clueless. And sister, that is an enormous amount.

Louis

Perhaps so, Louis.  Maybe you can help me out with more of a response than that.  Keep it simply and straightforward.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:29   

I've been looking for the questions you asked me and I can't remember what they were.

But, you're right; I owe you some answers.  If you could refresh my memory on the questions, I'll get at it.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:29   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)
Quote
And no, I can't come up with anything better than that. That's it.


WOW..  That's what I thought.  It's purely meaningless except in regard to seeking ultimate truth.  

It has no impact on a scientist's daily routine other than if he starts up a conversation about his thoughts in regard to truth and the meaning of life.

O RLY? So studying retroviruses common to humans and other mammals is useless then?

Care to venture a guess as to why humans and other mammals have retroviruses in common by the way?

Because "common design" by way of viruses injected into the genome sounds mighty sinister to me.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:31   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:26)
Oh, hey, here's an interesting question.

PZ provided this statement in regard to Vox's post about his invitation to debate PZ:

   
Quote
Wait -- I complain about the absence of intelligent arguments for God, and Vox Day pops up his little pin head and squeaks about miracles and bleeding statues and liquefying holy relics?

Vox, you don't qualify. You're a pathetic little twerp with delusions of grandeur.


Now, I ask you...  Do you find that Vox said anything remotely close to that in his post.

Hmmm...don't ya think a retraction is in order?  Compare this to the little hissy Lou had over my words in regard to Genie.

I will await for someone of integrity to say a few words on this matter.  Thanks. :)

Close to what? Your interpretation of what PZ said?

You demonstrably can't read for basic comprehension as your dishonest misquoting of me at your website months ago proved conclusively (as if that added nail in the coffin of your honesty was even needed).

Why should ANYONE take you, or Vox seriously FTK? a question you seem incapable of answering.

Guess what, we KNOW whay you can't answer it too. It's because you lack anything to support your asinine claims with. All you can do is wave your hands, obfuscate and hope people fail to notice your lack of substance in the smokescreen you try to generate.

Now, have you, for the UMPTEENTH time, found a scientific topic you wish to discuss? No? You surprise me.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:39   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,13:50)
Common descent...common design....either ideology will suffice for anyone considering a career in any field of science.

Except for biology, where the ideology of common design, whatever that is, has proven to be of little value, and the worth of the hypothesis (not ideology) of common descent has proven to be very valuable. And even for the other sciences, anyone who is disposed to accept design as an explanation would seem to be starting out with an intellectual handicap that might hamper him/her in the pursuit of a scientific career. It's just not scientific thinking, sorry.

 
Quote
That's the thing I've been thinking about lately.  This debate is completely ridiculous and has no real affect on science either way.  Dave's right...it's all about religion *from both sides* of the argument.

Nope, I didn't say that. I said that your only grip on these issues was religious. You think that you will burn in hell for eternity if you are "converted" to "darwinism". (Sorry about the scare quotes, but they seem necessary here.)

There are plenty of folks here who have shown that they are willing and able to talk about the science. There have been plenty of times when you showed us that you are absolutely afraid of the science.

Why are you here, exactly?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:46   

Quote (dnmlthr @ June 09 2008,14:29)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)
Quote
And no, I can't come up with anything better than that. That's it.


WOW..  That's what I thought.  It's purely meaningless except in regard to seeking ultimate truth.  

It has no impact on a scientist's daily routine other than if he starts up a conversation about his thoughts in regard to truth and the meaning of life.

Quote
O RLY? So studying retroviruses common to humans and other mammals is useless then?


Certainly not, and you would by no means have to adhere to common descent to study retroviruses and their affect on humans.  My goodness, are you familiar with creation science?  In what way would a creationist not be able conduct research in this area merely because he adhere to common design???

Quote
Care to venture a guess as to why humans and other mammals have retroviruses in common by the way?


Common design.  Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.  They break down the system, not build it up, btw.  Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.  It's merely their philosophical viewpoints that would differ.

Quote
Because "common design" by way of viruses injected into the genome sounds mighty sinister to me.


That's a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:49   

Quote
Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.

Well, why don't they?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:50   

Quote
You think that you will burn in hell for eternity if you are "converted" to "darwinism". (Sorry about the scare quotes, but they seem necessary here.)


Oh, BS, Dave.  The only time I've ever said anything like that was in jest.  I've always maintained that a person doesn't have to hold to creationist views to inherit a rather pleasant life in eternity.  I'm pretty sure you're well aware of my position in this regard.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:54   

Quote (olegt @ June 09 2008,14:49)
Quote
Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.

Well, why don't they?

Don't they??

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:56   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,14:46)
Common design.  Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.  They break down the system, not build it up, btw.  Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.  It's merely their philosophical viewpoints that would differ.

And their ability to make predictions.  It's difficult to make predictions about viral evolution if you don't know anything about when, or by what mechanism, viral genes are introduced into the system. If you actually knew anything about how biological research is done, you would know that design, as an explanation, is completely useless in terms of making predictions. Useless. Why bother with a useless paradigm?

But we've been down this road before. You don't know anything about what you are talking about, but that doesn't stop you from telling us all how to do our jobs.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,14:58   

Quote
Common design.  Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.  They break down the system, not build it up, btw.  Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.  It's merely their philosophical viewpoints that would differ.


You don't know what a retrovirus is. You need to learn before you continue to argue along these lines. Wikipedia's always a good place to start.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:04   

Quote
Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.  It's merely their philosophical viewpoints that would differ.

Why don't they then? Who's stopping them? Anybody? Anybody?

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

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

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:04   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)
My goodness, are you familiar with creation science?

If you by creation science mean the dead ends of flood geology, T-Rexes eating coconuts and whatever else Ken Ham is up to these days, then I guess I am familiar with it.

 
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)

In what way would a creationist not be able conduct research in this area merely because he adhere to common design???

Well, one problem would be not having a known mechanism to work with. Saying "goddidit" and leaving it at that doesn't exactly open up new avenues of research. For some reason the verses on molecular biology must have been expelled during the first council of Nicaea.

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:19)

Quote
Care to venture a guess as to why humans and other mammals have retroviruses in common by the way?

Common design.  Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.  They break down the system, not build it up, btw.

Lactose tolerance is a good thing, isn't it? If you're not into the dairy industry (vegan perhaps?), then perhaps HIV immunity might be considered a good thing?

Edit: Fixed renegade quote tags.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 08 2008,05:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 06 2008,17:06)
FTK,
There's only really one thing I want to talk about. I mean, there are alot of things we could talk about. So I've picked one, one I've actually found quite interesting as I had not heard about it before I happened upon it as a by-product of this thread. And I rather think that makes us even and therefore immune to the "I'm not a scientist" defence.

Those !! jellyfish.

On this  page you say:
           
And this is the earliest mention of jellyfish on this thread, and I guess that's the whole basis for your position on the issue. That they look just like the "modern" jellyfish. I further presume, extrapolate rather as you've never really put the pieces togeter, that this also forms part of the basis that the earth "could be" 6000 years old. "Old" jellyfish look like "new" jellyfish and so maybe, perhaps, old jellyfish is really not that old after all?

Something like that?

In any case I refer you back to my first post on the matter where I link to this page:
An amazing Cambrian quarry in Central Wisconsin
I quote:
                 
Quote
The medusae jellyfish fossils have so far been found in seven layers in the quarry, representing some 12 vertical feet of rock and corresponding to a span of time of about one million years. Hagadorn, et. al. state that the quarry's features are "consistent with an intermittently exposed intertidal and shallow-subtidal setting that was probably located in a shallow lagoonal area with limited wind fetch . . . . within a possible sandy barrier island system on the flank of the Wisconsin dome may have further restricted the environment, and severe tropical storms provide a plausible mechanism for medusoid stranding.

And of course the point is that Walt Brown claims
                 
Quote
Thousands of fossilized jellyfish have been found in central Wisconsin, sorted to some degree by size into at least seven layers (spanning 10 vertical feet) of coarse-grained sediments.[20] Evolutionists admit that a fossilized jellyfish is exceptionally rare, so finding thousands of them in what was coarse, abrasive sand is almost unbelievable. Claiming that it occurred during storms at the same location on seven different occasions, but over a million years, is ridiculous.

What happened? Multiple liquefaction lenses, vertically aligned during the last liquefaction cycle, trapped delicate animals such as jellyfish and gently preserved them as the roof of each water lens settled onto its floor.

Note how Walt uses the devastating critique of "unbelievable" and "ridiculous" to demolish the argument. And "liquefaction lenses"? A quick google search gives us 19 results and most refer back to creationscience.com, nothing relevant to the reader wanting to know more about this mechanism.

See the picture to the left of my name on every post FTK? It's a jellyfish!

So, I ask you, which account of the formation of those jellyfish fossils is more credible, given neither of us are going to go there and look for ourselves?

Of course, in response to all that you said
               
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,11:56)
Here you go, OM.  

Gather some knowledgeable PhD's and let's get it set up.


And when pressed on the idiocy of that (the "challenge" linked to involved publishing a book!) FTK you responded
         
Quote
Have you already forgotten why I have chose not to defend Brown's work?  

News flash - I am not a scientist.

You have told me time and time again that I'm an idiot who is taken in by crackery and liars.  Therefore, it is your obligation to debate the source rather than debate the idiotic uneducated followers of the lame theory.

You must debate the true source of your disgust in order for those of us who find these theories compelling to take your seriously.  True, it would be a long and daunting task, but with a team of players it could be done.

Do it.


As I noted at the start I am not a scientist. Neither are you. I'm asking about your opinion regarding the book that at the time you were recommending everybody read and how it deals with the evidence (the fossils and their arrangement) and how the mainstream scientists deal with the evidence. Who's account do you find more credible?  

Earlier you wanted to escape from the BW to respond to one of my posts. Well, ffs, respond to this then.

Cheers

OM

mafic

ftk, you want I post this on every page?

pah

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

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:05   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,14:50)
Oh, BS, Dave.  The only time I've ever said anything like that was in jest.  I've always maintained that a person doesn't have to hold to creationist views to inherit a rather pleasant life in eternity.  I'm pretty sure you're well aware of my position in this regard.

Yes, I'm well aware that your position in this regard changes with the Kansas wind. And we are both aware that your comment here ("not just creationists can go to heaven") is not in any way addressing what I said ("you are afraid that YOU will go to hell if you "converted").

So let me ask you this directly. Do you think that if you changed your mind about common descent and evolution, that you would spend eternity in Hell?

Beyond that, however, we should examine a few other statements of yours. Eternity is only part of the story. None of us have a moral code, according to you.

Those were not words in jest, I'm pretty certain.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:22   

Quote
So let me ask you this directly. Do you think that if you changed your mind about common descent and evolution, that you would spend eternity in Hell?


Of course not.  If you don't believe me, go ask Jeremy.  He's well aware of my position here.  He believes in common descent and evolution and I ~certainly~ don't think he's going to Hell.

Do I think that Darwinism can lead people away from God when it's the only historical inference offered to our students?  YUP, sure do...that's obviously true.  Is that why I am an activist for ID?  It's certainly part of the reason.  The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.  

The amount of faith that one would have to have in order to believe that everything we observe on planet earth evolved from a single organism that happened to pop into existence from *nothing* is incredible.  That's why there are relatively so few atheists.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:27   

Quote
And their ability to make predictions.  It's difficult to make predictions about viral evolution if you don't know anything about when, or by what mechanism, viral genes are introduced into the system. If you actually knew anything about how biological research is done, you would know that design, as an explanation, is completely useless in terms of making predictions. Useless. Why bother with a useless paradigm?


Dave, we've been down this road a million times before.  Scientists were very much aware of the similiarities between organisms long before Darwin.  You can make predictions about their simliarities from a design standpoint in exactly the same way you would from an evolution standpoint.  

Charting out simliarities between organisms was done before Darwin as well.  Studying the similiarities between organisms is what leads to scientific advancement.  It doesn't matter one iota whether your philosophical viewpoint is common design or common descent.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1020
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:30   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,15:27)
[quote]Charting out simliarities between organisms was done before Darwin as well.  Studying the similiarities between organisms is what leads to scientific advancement.  

You mean advancements like, oh I don't know, evolution through the process of natural selection?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:30   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,21:22)
The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.

Only unsubstantiated if you disregard all the existing lines of evidence. The molecular evidence alone is astounding.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:35   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,14:54)
Quote (olegt @ June 09 2008,14:49)
 
Quote
Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.

Well, why don't they?

Don't they??

No, they don't. Why don't they, ftk?

Earlier, you wrote:
Quote
Certainly not, and you would by no means have to adhere to common descent to study retroviruses and their affect on humans.

Real virologists study *E*ffects. Real scientists tend to test their hypotheses in model systems first, too. Wouldn't a failure to adhere to common descent also imply a failure to adhere to the utility of model systems?
Quote
My goodness, are you familiar with creation science?

I'm familiar enough to know that no "creation scientists" are retrovirologists. Are you claiming that we are wrong?
Quote
In what way would a creationist not be able conduct research in this area merely because he adhere to common design???

Why are you trying to make this into a hypothetical? You need to explain the reality that no creationists do retrovirology first, it seems to me.
Quote
Quote

Care to venture a guess as to why humans and other mammals have retroviruses in common by the way?

Common design.

Why would God have designed similar (not identical) retroviruses for different species? Why the differences that are predicted by common descent? Why wouldn't God have designed identical ones for different species?

Why do creationists always lie and pretend that the nested hierarchy describing the mathematical relationships between sequences is mere "similarity," when in fact, the differences are just as important as the identities?
Quote
Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.

What does that have to do with anything? What about avian retroviruses? And why are you not sufficiently literate to distinguish between "affect" (a verb, except when describing mood) and "effect" (a noun)?
Quote
They break down the system, not build it up, btw.

How do you explain all the mutations that create new functions, then?
Quote
Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.

So why don't they? What are they afraid of?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3556
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:36   

Quote
Charting out simliarities[sic] between organisms was done before Darwin as well.  Studying the similiarities[sic] between organisms is what leads to scientific advancement.  It doesn't matter one iota whether your philosophical viewpoint is common design or common descent.


Hey, it's mathematically possible to map all astronomical observations to a geocentric model. It doesn't matter one iota to anyone not planning to travel through space.

The central weakness of ID is not that it is wrong, but that it can't be wrong.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:36   

Quote (Louis @ June 09 2008,14:31)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:26)
Oh, hey, here's an interesting question.

PZ provided this statement in regard to Vox's post about his invitation to debate PZ:

     
Quote
Wait -- I complain about the absence of intelligent arguments for God, and Vox Day pops up his little pin head and squeaks about miracles and bleeding statues and liquefying holy relics?

Vox, you don't qualify. You're a pathetic little twerp with delusions of grandeur.


Now, I ask you...  Do you find that Vox said anything remotely close to that in his post.

Hmmm...don't ya think a retraction is in order?  Compare this to the little hissy Lou had over my words in regard to Genie.

I will await for someone of integrity to say a few words on this matter.  Thanks. :)

Close to what? Your interpretation of what PZ said?

You demonstrably can't read for basic comprehension as your dishonest misquoting of me at your website months ago proved conclusively (as if that added nail in the coffin of your honesty was even needed).

Why should ANYONE take you, or Vox seriously FTK? a question you seem incapable of answering.

Guess what, we KNOW whay you can't answer it too. It's because you lack anything to support your asinine claims with. All you can do is wave your hands, obfuscate and hope people fail to notice your lack of substance in the smokescreen you try to generate.

Now, have you, for the UMPTEENTH time, found a scientific topic you wish to discuss? No? You surprise me.

Louis

I believe I had started down an avenue of discussion with you here.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:39   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,15:22)
Do I think that Darwinism can lead people away from God when it's the only historical inference offered to our students?  YUP, sure do...that's obviously true.  Is that why I am an activist for ID?  It's certainly part of the reason.  The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.  

The amount of faith that one would have to have in order to believe that everything we observe on planet earth evolved from a single organism that happened to pop into existence from *nothing* is incredible.  That's why there are relatively so few atheists.

Quote
Do I think that Darwinism can lead people away from God when it's the only historical inference offered to our students?

What other "inferences" would you like offered to our students? There are several I can think of. All as supported by evidence as Intelligent Design
Quote
YUP, sure do...that's obviously true.

Ah, your favorite type of evidence. The "obviously true" type. Just proclaim it, and so be it.
Quote
Is that why I am an activist for ID?  It's certainly part of the reason.

Chortle. FTK the activist. With a negative effect. We're glad you are on our side (albeit unwittingly).
Quote
The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.  

If that's what common descent is then what is intelligent design? Are there hundreds and hundreds of books describing evidence understood via common descent? There are? I see. What about Intelligent design? No? So what is really UNSUBSTANTIATED? Common descent is UNSUBSTANTIATED? If so. what does that make ID in comparison? Dust on the wind?
If it's questionable you'd think your side would be questioning it. Instead of trying to have pathetic little "debates" on AM radio. Get in the lab, get some work done.
 
Quote

The amount of faith that one would have to have in order to believe that everything we observe on planet earth evolved from a single organism that happened to pop into existence from *nothing* is incredible.  That's why there are relatively so few atheists.


FTK, SIMPLE QUESTION (I KNOW YOU LIKE CAPITALS, SORRY EVERYBODY ELSE)

What amount of faith does it take to take Walt seriously when he offers NO evidence in the face of ACTUAL evidence?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:45   

Quote
Studying the similiarities[sic] between organisms is what leads to scientific advancement.  It doesn't matter one iota whether your philosophical viewpoint is common design or common descent.


FTK, if common design is true then "evolution" and "macro evolution" have played no significant part in the development of biological life.

Therefore do you agree or disagree with "evolution, the subject and study of, plays little to no part in the practice of professions relating to biology, I.E the practice of medicine, dentistry, HIV research etc. It's just not needed"

?

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

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,15:56   

Quote (dnmlthr @ June 09 2008,15:30)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,21:22)
The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.

Only unsubstantiated if you disregard all the existing lines of evidence. The molecular evidence alone is astounding.

You really want to see something funny?  Ask her why Common Descent isn't real science because it's all (in her opinion) inference

AND

why ID is real science because all it has is inference.

It's too bad she'll never answer that or even wonder at the cognitive disconnect hat must exist to simultaneously believe both of those things.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,16:10   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,15:22)
     
Quote
So let me ask you this directly. Do you think that if you changed your mind about common descent and evolution, that you would spend eternity in Hell?

Of course not.  If you don't believe me, go ask Jeremy.  He's well aware of my position here.  He believes in common descent and evolution and I ~certainly~ don't think he's going to Hell.

Do I think that Darwinism can lead people away from God when it's the only historical inference offered to our students?  YUP, sure do...that's obviously true.  

Thanks for that answer.

But it doesn't jibe with other statements you have made (and which I could dig up, if needed). In fact, it is internally inconsistent. You state that belief in Darwinism is not going to send you to hell. Then you state that it can lead people away from God. Please explain that distinction. Relative to Hell, how much further away from God can you get? More to the point, if your problem with evolution is that you think it will take YOU further away from God, why do you persist in the self-delusion that your concerns are in the realm of science and education? You'll never look at the science if you think that it will shake your faith.  Why pretend to do so, and blather on about retroviruses and such, when the real problem is that you don't want to be led away from God?

   
Quote
Is that why I am an activist for ID?  It's certainly part of the reason.  The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.

No, it's not unsubstantiated at all. It is massively supported by evidence that you either can't understand, or won't bother to see. And why would that bother you anyway, since the inference you prefer has been around a lot longer and has absolutely NO evidence to support it.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2008,16:18   

Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,21:22)
The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.

Ftk,

The evidence is strong enough that even Michael Behe accepts common descent over common design.

It really is obvious, if you actually look at the evidence.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 245 246 247 248 249 [250] 251 252 253 254 255 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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