RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 275 276 277 278 279 [280] 281 282 283 284 285 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,15:55   

Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,15:22)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:10)
   
Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,15:00)
Hugs and kisses, FtK.  

If god is out of the equation, what's the difference between creation science and ID?

Sigh...

Oleg, we've been over this time and time again.  I honestly don't understand why you don't see the difference.

Read Brown's book.  It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch.  It ='s ID

There is a difference...huge really.  Creation science fucks with virtually every field of secular science in case you haven't noticed.  

ID only postulates the idea that there has to be a designing force responsible for the complexity we see in nature.  

Sure, some issues may overlap, but ID is a different concept that has no overt religious teachings.  Religious implications?  Sure.  But, then evolution has religious implications as well.

Excellent, FtK, now we're moving somewhere!  

You're right, Behe and Dembski's ID stuff is different from Walt Brown's.  At the same time, it's virtually indistinguishable from the scientific creationism of Henry Morris.  Here's Dembski responding to Morris:    
Quote
Morris claims that intelligent design brings nothing new to the debate: "It is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation." Morris notes that the bacterial flagellum, the icon of intelligent design, was used by the late Dick Bliss. So too, my use of the term "specified complexity" as a criterion for detecting design has, according to Morris, "essentially the same meaning as 'organized complexity,' which is more meaningful and which I have often used myself." And as for my universal probability bound of 10^(–150), below which chance is precluded, Emile Borel proposed a less conservative one of 10^(–50) and Morris himself proposed a bound of 10^(–110).

You can read Morris's original critique of ID here.  The bottom line: Dembski and Behe didn't invent a new brand of creationism, they just re-branded an existing one.  Sure, their creation science is different from Brown's but it's identical to Morris's.

Um, Oleg, are you familiar with Morris' infamous book, The Genesis Flood.

Just curious...

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,15:57   

Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,14:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,12:58)
lcd:

   
Quote

An Intelligent designer would use things over again that worked.


So, why would a designer use things over that didn't work?

From what I believe and read it was Original Sin that caused and is causing God's creation to break down.  Micro Evolution is fully supported by ID and indeed it is supported and predicted by it.  The loss of Information is why we get these sub-optimal appearing designs.

God's creation was perfect, our sin destroyed that perfection.

Or again that is what I Postulate.


So the very same "breakdown" of one single nucelotide substitution occurred in chimps and humans and spread and fixed in those populations post-Fall?

Quote

For the example of the GLO unitary pseudogene of humans, it is known that vitamin C is required in the diet of other primates, (though not for other mammals except guinea pigs). The theory of evolution would make the strong prediction that primates should also be found to have GLO pseudogenes and that these would carry similar crippling mutations to the ones found in the human pseudogene. This prediction was stated in earlier versions of the present essay. A test of this prediction has recently been reported. A small section of the GLO pseudogene sequence was recently compared from human, chimpanzee, macaque and orangutan; all four pseudogenes were found to share a common crippling single nucleotide deletion that would cause the remainder of the protein to be translated in the wrong triplet reading frame (Ohta and Nishikimi BBA 1472:408, 1999).


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2778
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,15:57   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:36)
 
Quote
Nobody said "common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology".


Got that right!  That would make a perfect sig for me IF I HAD AN EDIT BUTTON AND COULD ADD IT TO MY SIG LINE.

The rest of your post is BS.  It's your opinion that your ideology would work better because it's a mind set you can't free yourself from.

Typical evasions.

It's not an "ideology" except in your head. Given that you have never set up an experiment or published a paper in your life, you might consider the faint possibility that you are wrong about this. Science is a pragmatic business; nobody sticks to an ideology that doesn't work. Even engineers know that much.

You have given no evidence other than your opinion that my response was BS, because, per usual, you have no evidence.

What is the evidence that common design is a better paradigm than common descent for a modern biological scientist?  My evidence is numbers of papers published and numbers of new products or treatments. In both cases the score reads:

Common descent - thousands to millions

Common design - zip, nada, zilch, zero

If it's such a great idea, how come it doesn't give us any results? Where's the evidence?

--------------
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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,15:59   

I've flushed several things from the last eight or ten pages.  The posting is going faster than I can keep up with, so just deal with it.



Quote
but I know what I like, by mondoagogo


--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:05   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 09 2008,13:52)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 09 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,13:44)
   
Quote
More like the eleventy-one science professors of the apocalypse.


That ought to give her nightmares.

"We're in your schools, teaching your children!"

How's this for quick turnaround?


Umm, am I seeing things or has PZ misbuttoned his shirt?



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Sol3a1



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:06   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:26)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,15:02)
And I seem to remember reading this somewhere as a governing goal in some sort of document...

 
Quote
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

And, how would that differ from the four horsemen's plan to use science to erradicate religion?  

I think we're on a level playing field in regard to those who would like to see one ideology replace the other.  If we're all honest, every one of us would be more comfortable if we all held the same worldview.  But, that doesn't mean that that will be decided in the science class.  As long as both sides are fairly considered, neither has anything to fear.  If anyone thinks that one ideology is going to reign supreme and wipe out consideration of the other, they're absolutely delusional.  

Both sides have and always will have a place at the table regardless of whose ideology currently reigns over the science classroom.  We can (and have) try to kill each other off, but it won't change the fact that there will always be those who reject design and those who accept it.  

If both sides were allowed to be considered, the public would be more apt to trust scientists and the incessent bickering and court cases over this bullshit would cease.

One thing Ftk, XY is male and XX is female.

Now, Science can't destroy faith.  A person has it or they don't.  What Science can destroy is literal interpretation, that Adam begat Cain who begat.  That there was a Global Flood.  That the Universe is 6000 years old.  That is what Science can do.

There are many Christians who accept that their God isn't a Moron and a selectively intervening micro-manager who needs to continuously fuck around with their creations.

Personally, my issue with the Fundie god is why does a being feel the need to be worshiped?  Sounds more like a petulant and spoiled child to be mocked than anything else.  And don't get me started on the idea that this god is loving when he commands that some children get their brains smashed and that you take the virgin females of your enemies and make them concubines.  Yeah, nice guy.

But if you think there's really something to ID, please give us what Information is on how it applies to genetics.  Or just answer another question from another poster.

If you're response is, "I'll wait until (insert moving goalposts here) is done", that will be a long time.  Now is the time for you to strike.  Post your answers shows us how stupid you think we are.

Oh yeah, if you want to "teach IDism", what about voodoo?  How about Helio-centrism?  Oh yeah, "scientists believed the Sun went around the Earth" is complete crap.  That was done by the christian church that forbade the other ideas.

The ball is in your court.

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:09   

Quote
XY - the resident creationist stripper and antagonizer.  Thanks.


More fail. But totally on par for her understanding of science and biology.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1014
Joined: April 2007

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

FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:13   

Yeah, I considered explaining it, but then thought I'd save my breath.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:16   

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Because she said so.
   
Quote

'When I call it ID,' Ftk said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'


--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:16   

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,14:09)
Quote
XY - the resident creationist stripper and antagonizer.  Thanks.


More fail. But totally on par for her understanding of science and biology.

But for laffs, I give it a 9.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Sol3a1



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:19   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 09 2008,16:13)
Yeah, I considered explaining it, but then thought I'd save my breath.

I think we all, save Ftk, saw it.

Just thought it would be a great idea to actually point it out directly though.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:30   

Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,15:40)
 
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:30)
   
Quote
No Ftk, the lungs developed after they need arose.  Also, evolution does not target specific members but parts of  species.

So there was no need to have lungs until the first fish needed a way to get from mud puddle to mud puddle.  Lungs arose from that.


How?

Here's an excerpt from Evolution: the Triumf of an Idea by science journalist Carl Zimmer.  
   
Quote

Lungs, for example, appear to have evolved in fish long before any air-breathing land vertebrate existed.  There are still some primitive, air-breathing fish alive today, such as the bichir of Africa.  Lungs are helpful to the bichir, but not absolutely essential, because it can get oxygen through its gills. But by breathing through its lungs from time to time, a bichir can boost its swimming stamina with an extra supply of oxygen to the heart.  [b]Around 360 million years ago, one lineage of air-breathing fish began spending some time on dry land.  As they increased their time out of the water, they adapted their limblike fins to support their weight as they walked.  Eventually their gills disappeared altogether.  Over the course of millions of years, these early tetrapods became completely dependent on their lungs -- a process documented with fossils.[

I highly recommend reading the book.  I'm sure you can get it at the local library.


Sure, I'll get the book when I have time.  Rather enjoyed Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

But, bear in mind that I can tell good stories like that too.   Kinda reminds me of the crap they use to postulate about the coelacanth.

Stories are fine.  I'm all for telling them, and they could very well be accurate in many instances, but just don't present them as fact (like Zimmer does in the quote above).

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

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:30   

Biologists rely on evolution in the same way as astronomy and cosmology relies on the universe being old and logical. In order to understand what is, you have to understand how it got there.

If the universe is old, I can point to a nebula and tell you where it came from and how it relates to the rest of the universe. If the creationists are correct, this is impossible. Everything is there because god put it there, and for no other reason. We have no reason to assume a planetary nebula is produced when a star blows off its outer layers, because the universe hasn't been around long enough for a star to blow off its outer layers - it's just there for the cosmetic value, and no conclusions can ever be drawn from that.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:38   

I'd like to proffer 'uneconomical design", which is crap design, as an argument (probably been dome before)

99% of species extinct
Solar systems are a timy fraction of the universe
If we are indeed a 'privileged planet' then this a crap utilization of resources

etc, etc..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:38   

Quote (Nerull @ July 09 2008,16:30)
If the universe is old, I can point to a nebula and tell you where it came from and how it relates to the rest of the universe. If the creationists are correct, this is impossible. Everything is there because god put it there, and for no other reason. We have no reason to assume a planetary nebula is produced when a star blows off its outer layers, because the universe hasn't been around long enough for a star to blow off its outer layers - it's just there for the cosmetic value, and no conclusions can ever be drawn from that.

As science, it's nonexistent and as theology it's moronic. God placed everything in the Universe for us to look at, even the stuff we can't see unaided, because he knew one day we'd invent telescopes so that we could see it.

Does anyone out there seriously believe that?

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:40   

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.  No doubt after listening to folks like yourselves, they're expecting to walk into religious curriculum that covers Noah, his wife, sons & daughters and a worldwide flood.  ID don't go there, folks.  It only postulates whether one can detect design in nature.  Most advocates of the theory also support teaching the controversial issues surrounding the ToE.  That's just good science....doesn't have a darn thing to do with shoving religion into the science class.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:43   

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,16:16)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Because she said so.
   
Quote

'When I call it ID,' Ftk said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

My bad...whatever.  XX, XY, Piranha.  Give me a damn edit button so I can fix my typos.

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:45   

Quote
The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.  No doubt after listening to folks like yourselves, they're expecting to walk into religious curriculum that covers Noah, his wife, sons & daughters and a worldwide flood.  ID don't go there, folks.  It only postulates whether one can detect design in nature.  Most advocates of the theory also support teaching the controversial issues surrounding the ToE.  That's just good science....doesn't have a darn thing to do with shoving religion into the science class.

 
Quote
'When I call it ID,' Ftk said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'


--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:50   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,16:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with FTK here.

Pandas, 1986:
Quote
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.


Pandas, 1987:
Quote
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.


Big difference.  Huge, even.

Next thing you chance worshippers are going to tell us is that Clark Kent is Superman.  Not true. Clark Kent wears glasses, Superman doesn't.*

* Yes, I know about "Mystery Men", but it is less obscure this way.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:57   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:40)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.  No doubt after listening to folks like yourselves, they're expecting to walk into religious curriculum that covers Noah, his wife, sons & daughters and a worldwide flood.  ID don't go there, folks.  It only postulates whether one can detect design in nature.  Most advocates of the theory also support teaching the controversial issues surrounding the ToE.  That's just good science....doesn't have a darn thing to do with shoving religion into the science class.


Sure. [pats head]

 
Quote
The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.
The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
There are three "wedge projects," referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:
Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation:
 
Quote

"Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture


Quote
At the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" [6] called by Reverend D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Johnson gave a speech called How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won [7]. In it he sums up the theological and epistemological underpinnings of intelligent design and its strategy for winning the battle:  
Quote
"To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning." He goes on to state: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the scientific world." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."


 
Quote
"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." [8]


 
Quote
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." [9]
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." [10]


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 232
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,16:59   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:39)
I'm not a liar or dishonest so all those who claimed I am can retract now.

Nope.  You're a liar.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:01   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,16:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

I simply cannot believe that you are so stupid that you think there is a difference between the two.  Much less a "massive" difference.  Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are lying.  For Jesus.  But maybe, just maybe, you really are that stupid.

You can put a pile of dog shit in a Gucci bag but that doesn't mean it's a Gucci; it's smells like a pile of dogshit because it is a pile of dogshit, repackaging be damned.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:13   

Quote

You can put a pile of dog shit in a Gucci bag but that doesn't mean it's a Gucci; it's smells like a pile of dogshit because it is a pile of dogshit, repackaging be damned.


I use an analogy of folks successively trying to sell pressed sawdust as "corn flakes" of various brands, but, yeah, the same content is the same content. When this stuff next goes to court, I'm convinced that the key to success is the inclusion of one or more intellectual property experts who will know exactly how to make this point in court and have tons of precedent from IP law behind it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:15   

Quote (Wolfhound @ July 09 2008,17:01)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,16:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

I simply cannot believe that you are so stupid that you think there is a difference between the two.  Much less a "massive" difference.  Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are lying.  For Jesus.  But maybe, just maybe, you really are that stupid.

You can put a pile of dog shit in a Gucci bag but that doesn't mean it's a Gucci; it's smells like a pile of dogshit because it is a pile of dogshit, repackaging be damned.

Think whatever you like, but I'm not lying.  Have you ever seen flood geology or age of the earth issues covered in Dembski/Johnson/Behe books regarding design?

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:28   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,17:15)
Quote (Wolfhound @ July 09 2008,17:01)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,16:40)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

I simply cannot believe that you are so stupid that you think there is a difference between the two.  Much less a "massive" difference.  Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are lying.  For Jesus.  But maybe, just maybe, you really are that stupid.

You can put a pile of dog shit in a Gucci bag but that doesn't mean it's a Gucci; it's smells like a pile of dogshit because it is a pile of dogshit, repackaging be damned.

Think whatever you like, but I'm not lying.  Have you ever seen flood geology or age of the earth issues covered in Dembski/Johnson/Behe books regarding design?

<*ahem*>

Quote
cre·a·tion·ism  [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
Now, then, this boils down to "Critters was poofed into existence by God".  The other stupidity contained in the Bible that loons try to pass off as science/history (hellooooo, Walt Brown/Morris/whoever) has no bearing here.  OEC/YEC/whatever all fall under the same big tent.  ID differs only from the definition of creationism in that the mendacious con artists of newly rebranded creationism, in order to try to get around federal laws against it, now say "Critters was poofed into existence by the Designer".

As I said, it's still dog shit at the heart of it.  You're a tool, FtK.  Or else a liar.  Or just plain stupid if you cannot grasp this.  I can ask the other forum members here which of the three choices they think is closer to the mark.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:31   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.  No doubt after listening to folks like yourselves, they're expecting to walk into religious curriculum that covers Noah, his wife, sons & daughters and a worldwide flood.  ID don't go there, folks.  It only postulates whether one can detect design in nature.  Most advocates of the theory also support teaching the controversial issues surrounding the ToE.  That's just good science....doesn't have a darn thing to do with shoving religion into the science class.

Blah, blah, blah. My question re: OPAP wasn't allowed to see the light of day on Reasonable Kansans (a few months back), and still here Ftk refuses to answer the question.

How about some straight talk, Ftk? OPAP: Creationist or ID textbook?

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:35   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,17:13)
I use an analogy of folks successively trying to sell pressed sawdust as "corn flakes" of various brands, but, yeah, the same content is the same content. When this stuff next goes to court, I'm convinced that the key to success is the inclusion of one or more intellectual property experts who will know exactly how to make this point in court and have tons of precedent from IP law behind it.

At least sawdust-as-cornflakes has some value to the consumer in the form of fiber to aid digestion so it's not a total waste.  ID, on the other hand, is just as worthless as its base material, creationism.  Still plenty of credulous sheeple who will buy it because they think it's good for them, though.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:35   

We come to the close of another episode of the FtK Show now in its 10th season.

FtK is EXACTLY the same year after year.

All evidence (nylonase, Tiktaalik) is "lol" or "rotfl".

All pathways are "just-so" stories.

All conclusions are not "facts" but a combination of "just-so" stories and "lol".

All research is biased by "worldview."

FtK has no time to think about frogs, but can write 1000 words on how mean we are to her beloved Walt Brown who has great abs and can do the hydroplate for hours.

FtK still can't explain ID because she doesn't know what it is.  (But, to be fair NOBODY knows what ID is.)

All questions are unanswered, except for declarations to read this or that creationist book that will answer the question, however, they never do.

Or, questions are ignored.

Or, questions are answered with another question on a different subject.

I agree with Louis.  All that's left is mockery.  

Here's a big LOL to you, FtK, and I'm laughing AT you not with you.  You're so dumb you make dumb bunnies look smart.  You're like a Bozo the Clown in stiletto heels, only dumber.  Check out Wikipedia's definition of "dumb";  it's got your picture!  Oh, look at the Conservapedia definition of "dumb";  ditto.  Sorry, FtK, you couldn't be a ditto head because the ditto couldn't stay balanced on the point.  Even poison ivy is smarter than you, although I wonder if the ivy is covered in FtK?  When FtK goes to Oklahoma the average IQ of both states increases.

My advice to you, FtK, is to get a Sarah Lee pound cake and a half-gallon of Dutch Chocolate ice cream and zone out for a while.  Oh, wear a bib.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:36   

Quote
Think whatever you like, but I'm not lying.  Have you ever seen flood geology or age of the earth issues covered in Dembski/Johnson/Behe books regarding design?


I would start with Dembski's Mere Creation in which he welcomes young earth creationists to the fold and says solidarity in the war against materialism is more important than deciding whether the earth is 6000 or four billion years old. He has repeated this recently on his blog.

Now if you see nothing ironic about a mathematician who doesn't care to distinguish between 6000 and four billion, I'd say you need serious help.

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

Pat Robertson

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

Pages: (341) < ... 275 276 277 278 279 [280] 281 282 283 284 285 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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