RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (22) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   
  Topic: FL Debate Peanut Gallery, Keep it Clean!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,13:44   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,13:29)
Quote
The main proponents of ID speaking at churches rather than science symposiums


I watched evolutionist Ken Miller give a lecture at a Presbyterian church about 4 or 5 years ago.  Therefore evolution isn't science, right?

If evolutionists only lectured in churches then no, it would not be "science".

But they don't.

Whereas ID proponents "lecture" in books, dvds, websites, churches etc.

They don't "lecture" in the peer reviewed literature. And on the very small number of occasions when they do they never mention "intelligent design" in the paper, but make grand claims for "intelligent design" elsewhere about that very same paper.

Witness Dembski's latest set of papers. He claims they support ID but refuses to say how exactly.

And the papers have nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution.

ID = Fail.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,13:47   

But it doesn't really matter.  Presented the specific reasons wrt both cosmo and bio ID, I believe.   We debated them, (but some of you--you guys, not me-- couldn't stop trying to talk about the first topic.)

But I would have stayed on,  as long as you guys wanted.  You, YOU, got tired.  Not me.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,13:55   

So, how about it FL?  Why didn't you start the "ID should be taught in schools" topic?

How come you picked 2 items (one of which is only your opinion) out of 11 things I said.  

I notice you didn't comment on the 'no data' statement.  Or the 'Demski says ID is religous' statement.  Why is that?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,14:00   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,13:47)
But I would have stayed on,  as long as you guys wanted.  You, YOU, got tired.  Not me.

Bullshit.
And I present this as evidence:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3131

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:02   

They don't "lecture" in the peer reviewed literature. And on the very small number of occasions when they do they never mention "intelligent design" in the paper, but make grand claims for "intelligent design" elsewhere about that very same paper.

Okay, the highlighted part contains a logical contradiction.  First half says "they don't" and second half says "when they do."  Contradiction.  And honestly, there's no way to take back the "they do."  Even one or two peer review papers are still peer review.

Second, peer review publication will help further acceptance of a scientific hypothesis among professional scientists and the public (we all agree on that),
BUT....does a hypothesis need to be peer-review journal article published in order to be a scientific hypothesis?

The flat answer is simply "No."  The scientific method, defines science and defines whether or not a hypothesis is scientific.

You can be a scientist--an amateur scientist, and a good one--but never ever get a chance to publish in one of the professional science journals.  And you wouldn't be the first to do so.

http://amasci.com/amateur/sciam1.html

So how do you determine what's science?  What matters is whether your hypothesis can follow the clear steps of the scientific method, including most importantly, the capability of being falsified via observation.


THAT, is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and one that is not.

FL

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 13 2010,14:00)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,13:47)
But I would have stayed on,  as long as you guys wanted.  You, YOU, got tired.  Not me.

Bullshit.
And I present this as evidence:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3131

As I recall, deadman closed the thread because FL had been off topic for too long.

I think FL and DM had some sort of agreement that (apparently) FL ignored.

That was why it was closed.

Although (having almost finished the entire AFDave thread), I must admit, Oldman has a very valid point.  ATBC seems perfectly will to take things as far as need be.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:02)

Okay, the highlighted part contains a logical contradiction.  First half says "they don't" and second half says "when they do."  Contradiction.

Therefore ID. Whatever.
   
Quote
 And honestly, there's no way to take back the "they do."  Even one or two peer review papers are still peer review.

If we started from scratch right now we'd have peer reviewed papers about phlogiston. And that's right and proper.
   
Quote

Second, peer review publication will help further acceptance of a scientific hypothesis among professional scientists and the public (we all agree on that),
BUT....does a hypothesis need to be peer-review journal article published in order to be a scientific hypothesis?

hypothesis:
   
Quote
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

I've highlighted your bit. But does a hypothesis need to be in a peer-reviewed journal article published in order to be a scientific hypothesis? No, of course not, but it would have been, right? As how did it get to be a hypothesis (in the scientific sense of the word) without that happening?

Meh.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:22   

Quote
I notice you didn't comment on the 'no data' statement.  Or the 'Demski says ID is religous' statement.  Why is that?

Probably because
(1) you may not know what 'data' is or how much that term can cover, and

(2) Dembski never said that "ID is religious."  He has not retracted his claim that ID is a scientific hypothesis.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:24   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:22)
(1) you may not know what 'data' is or how much that term can cover, and

Shouldn't that be datum is or data are?

Paging chatterbox..

--------------
"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

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:32   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,16:22)
(2) Dembski never said that "ID is religious."  He has not retracted his claim that ID is a scientific hypothesis.

He did say that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of Information theory."

Sounds religious to me.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:34   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,13:17)

Quote
Quote
That case unambiguously decided that ID is religion


Unambiguously....?  Try "Incorrectly."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Remarks....609.pdf


Only to a small portion of uneducated fringe wingnuts who do not understand either law or science.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:44   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:02)
You can be a scientist--an amateur scientist, and a good one--but never ever get a chance to publish in one of the professional science journals.  And you wouldn't be the first to do so.

http://amasci.com/amateur/sciam1.html

So how do you determine what's science?  What matters is whether your hypothesis can follow the clear steps of the scientific method, including most importantly, the capability of being falsified via observation.


THAT, is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and one that is not.

FL

There you go.  I'm actually impressed.  Although, if an amateur scientist did some good science, then there wouldn't be any reason for a peer-reviewed journal not to publish it.  

Now, what observation falsfies ID?

In other words (and I say this, because the usual ID response is some BS 'falsification' that isn't really)

1) What's the difference between an organism that's designed and one that is not designed?
2) What measurements will we make, with which tools, and what values indicate design or non-design?

Since we're talking about steps of the scientific method though, let's add

3) What is the actual hypothesis (and null) of ID?
4) What predictions come from this hypothesis?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:50   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:22)
Quote
I notice you didn't comment on the 'no data' statement.  Or the 'Demski says ID is religous' statement.  Why is that?

Probably because
(1) you may not know what 'data' is or how much that term can cover, and

(2) Dembski never said that "ID is religious."  He has not retracted his claim that ID is a scientific hypothesis.

I know plenty well what data is.  Let's not get into a mud slinging contest here.  You don't know me, I don't know you... don't go there OK?

As far as number 2...

Quote
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the
belief in God] and making it a scientific and
academic enterprise. We are removing the most
important cultural roadblock to accepting the role
of God as creator."
- Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the
Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.



Quote
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.


Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.


Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of
Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully
human and fully divine) and view Christ as the
telos toward which God is drawing the whole of
creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves
Christ out of the picture must be seen as
fundamentally deficient."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between
Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press,
1999.


Quote
“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.


Quote
“Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in
publicizing his research through traditional means.
“I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting
things to journals where you often wait two years
to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can
actually get the turnaround faster by writing a
book and getting the ideas expressed there. My
books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material
gets read more.””
Darwinism Under Attack, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm,
12/21/2001.


The first one is Johnson, but he's a founder of ID as well.

The last one is just a bonus to show you what Dembski's real purpose is... money.  And where his interest is not... doing any research to provide evidence that supports his opinion.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,15:52   

FL, aka Frontal Lobotomy wrote:

Quote
(2) Dembski never said that "ID is religious."  He has not retracted his claim that ID is a scientific hypothesis.


Willie Dembski wrote this:

Quote
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”


Doc Bill wrote:

Quote
FL is a complete moron.  Dog bites man.  Film at 11.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:12   

[quote]As I recall, deadman closed the thread because FL had been off topic for too long.

Yep, you guys were allowed to ask and talk and snipe about Topic #1 ("evolution is incompatible with Christianity") virtually throughout the entire debate.   Talk about "off topic for too long", (or double standards, or hypocrisy.)

Quote
He did say that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of Information theory."


Already dealt with previously.  The same book (Intelligent Design, 1999 IVP that contains this particular quotation, also contains Dembski's specific statement that the 3-point ID hypothesis (which again he spells out in the same book) does NOT rely, require, pre-assume, ANY religious claims from ANY religion's sacred texts, including the Gospel of John.

If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process, then you are free to rationally or religiously infer --on your own time and dime--support fo,r or some sort of equivalence WRT, the biblical Logos concept.

(Just as Dawkins and Myers and Wilson and Stenger and etc and etc and etc have chosen the religion of atheism as an inference that follows from evolutionary theory.  Evolution very clearly has theological implications if it's true, just like ID does if it's true. )

But the implications follow AFTER the hypothesis IF the hypothesis is accepted.  That's the point.

Indeed, the Logos thing is a reasonable and plausible inference, given what we know about the term 'Logos' in the Gospel of John.

(But that's your inferential decision to make, on your own time and dime, if that's your choice.

It doesn't make the ID hypothesis "religion-based", for  Dembski has showed that his specific ID hypothesis doesn't rely require assume or presuppose any religion's claims.)

FL

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:13   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:12)
But the implications follow AFTER the hypothesis IF the hypothesis is accepted.  That's the point.

And ID is so very far away from that point it might as well not even exist.

Unless of course by "accepted" you mean "buy my book".

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

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:16   

who pulled FL's string?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2152
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:35   

Quote (Robin @ April 13 2010,13:34)
[quote=FloydLee,April 13 2010,13:17][/quote]
Quote
Quote
That case unambiguously decided that ID is religion


Unambiguously....?  Try "Incorrectly."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Remarks....609.pdf


Only to a small portion of uneducated fringe wingnuts who do not understand either law or science.

aka "cdesign proponentsists".

A.S.S.F.!!!!

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:49   

Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

 
Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”


You know, these are two of the most profound statements I've ever read from anybody outside of the Bible writers.  It explains exactly why you evolutionists viscerally hate ID so very much.  

Be honest:  You've spent your lives nurturing a passion for science (which is a good thing), and ALSO nurtuing a passion for naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, (and in the case of Christian evolutionists, for syncretism), which is not good.

And now here comes Dembski saying that there's something fundamentally wrong with leaving Jesus Christ out of your concept of science in the first place.  Jesus Christ is no agnostic, no atheist, no syncretist, no materialist, and if you let HIM into your concept of what science is, then all those sewer-stenched idol gods (previously listed) got to git OUT and stay out.

And THAT's why there's this palpable visceral extreme hatred and suspicion of all things ID.  ID poses no threat to science, but those religious setups you guys have currently got going, are clear targets for belief-shifts and elimination.

FL

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:54   

Quote
What's the difference between an organism that's designed and one that is not designed?

The not-designed one willtotally lack any specified complexity / irreducible complexity, right down to its last little cell and that cell's components.

FL

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,17:59   

Quote
"And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there." --- Dembski

And if you don't think evolutionists aren't doing the very same thing to sell the masses on their evolutionary snake oil,  then you've never read Gould, Sagan, Ken Miller, nor Dawkins.  (Nor even Francis Collins!!).

FL

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2152
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,18:03   

Wow.

Projection, it's not just for movie theatres any more.

"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Who's the one with "this palpable visceral extreme hatred and suspicion"?

Defenders of reality hate ID because it's bullshit, FL, a cowardly excuse to weasel Bible-thumping into publicly funded science classes.

It has no use in the real world.  

It's Paklid-level, cargo cult, word-games and mind-wanking.  

No wonder you and your fellow "cdesign proponentsists" are so fond of it.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2152
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,18:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:49)
Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

   
Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”


You know, these are two of the most profound statements I've ever read from anybody outside of the Bible writers.  It explains exactly why you evolutionists viscerally hate ID so very much.  

Be honest:  You've spent your lives nurturing a passion for science (which is a good thing), and ALSO nurtuing a passion for naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, (and in the case of Christian evolutionists, for syncretism), which is not good.

And now here comes Dembski saying that there's something fundamentally wrong with leaving Jesus Christ out of your concept of science in the first place.  Jesus Christ is no agnostic, no atheist, no syncretist, no materialist, and if you let HIM into your concept of what science is, then all those sewer-stenched idol gods (previously listed) got to git OUT and stay out.

And THAT's why there's this palpable visceral extreme hatred and suspicion of all things ID.  ID poses no threat to science, but those religious setups you guys have currently got going, are clear targets for belief-shifts and elimination.

FL

(Shrug) Okay, let's invite Jesus Christ into the lab.

How does E=mc2 differ from E=mc2+JC?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,18:20   

I know this is more futile than resisting the Borg, but here goes.  One.  More.  Time.

Flaming Moron, er, Lunatic wrote:

Quote
Dembski never said that "ID is religious."



Dembski wrote, undisputed by Fl-Lu:

Quote
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”


Let me parse this for you -

ID = Intelligent design
is = is
religious = just the Logos theology of John's Gospel
. = restated in the idiom of information theory.

Substituting yields:  ID is religious.

I'm right, FL, right?

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,19:53   

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 13 2010,18:20)
I know this is more futile than resisting the Borg, but here goes.  One.  More.  Time.

Flaming Moron, er, Lunatic wrote:

Quote
Dembski never said that "ID is religious."



Dembski wrote, undisputed by Fl-Lu:

Quote
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”


Let me parse this for you -

ID = Intelligent design
is = is
religious = just the Logos theology of John's Gospel
. = restated in the idiom of information theory.

Substituting yields:  ID is religious.

I'm right, FL, right?

Look at all the other quotes provided.  Even if Floyd thinks he's shot down the Logos one, there are the rest.  

But, he probably thinks that since we pointed that out, that reflects our lifelong hatred of Christianity and Jeebus.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,19:55   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 13 2010,18:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:49)
 
Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

   
Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”


You know, these are two of the most profound statements I've ever read from anybody outside of the Bible writers.  It explains exactly why you evolutionists viscerally hate ID so very much.  

Be honest:  You've spent your lives nurturing a passion for science (which is a good thing), and ALSO nurtuing a passion for naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, (and in the case of Christian evolutionists, for syncretism), which is not good.

And now here comes Dembski saying that there's something fundamentally wrong with leaving Jesus Christ out of your concept of science in the first place.  Jesus Christ is no agnostic, no atheist, no syncretist, no materialist, and if you let HIM into your concept of what science is, then all those sewer-stenched idol gods (previously listed) got to git OUT and stay out.

And THAT's why there's this palpable visceral extreme hatred and suspicion of all things ID.  ID poses no threat to science, but those religious setups you guys have currently got going, are clear targets for belief-shifts and elimination.

FL

(Shrug) Okay, let's invite Jesus Christ into the lab.

How does E=mc2 differ from E=mc2+JC?

I think we need Jesus in the lab.  Dissecting a zombie would teach us so much about life...

Which brings up a title for a movie - The Jesus Plague - people start rising from the dead...and they're pissed!

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,19:58   

Quote (nmgirl @ April 13 2010,17:16)
who pulled FL's string?

"Evolution is hard!"

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,20:58   

Quote
"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Honestly?  Yes.  Straight down the line.  

Baal-Mart Blue-Light Specials, every last blasted one of 'em.   Hopefully you haven't been shopping their clearance racks??

FL

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,21:18   

And btw, Fnxtr...I think you might be intrigued by this assessment:
   
Quote
"...(Idolatry)--worshipping the creation rather than the Creator--is so completely backward, for it assigns ultimate value to something that is inherently incapable of achieving ultimate value.  Creation, especially a fallen creation, can at best reflect God's glory.  Idolatry, on the other hand, contends that creation fully comprehends God's glory.  Idolatry turns the creation into ultimate reality.  

"We've seen this before.  It is called naturalism.

"No doubt contemporary scientific naturalism is a lot more sophisticated that pagan fertility cults, but the difference is superficial.  
Naturalism is idolatry by another name."

Dembski, Intelligent Design (1999), p. 226.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2152
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2010,21:46   

... what, as opposed to worshipping Scripture instead of trying to understand the world God supposedly made?

Intrigued? Hardly.  The whole concept of "fallen creation" is nonsense.

You keep forgetting that all your attempts at proofs only work within your hermetically-sealed psychosis. The real world doesn't work like that.

Like I said, word games and mind-wanking.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
  634 replies since Sep. 09 2009,12:17 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (22) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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