RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,18:16   

Quote (Henry J @ April 25 2010,22:48)
As to the question of whether speciation has been observed, I'm sensing the implicit but incorrect assumption that the current theory would be undermined by the absence of seeing this process in operation.

I always wondered why creationists argue against speciation anyway? Unless their special creationism variety demands that they believe in the immutability of species and every species that exists or ever existed was created exactly as is, then logically, speciation must have taken place.

Actually, a YEC should be expecting to see new species popping into existence the whole time, otherwise how do you get to the diversity of species we see today in just 4000 years since the flood?

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1072
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,20:09   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 25 2010,17:31)
Let's put it this way:

BJ, do you have anything for us other than vague references to things evolution can't do, a misunderstanding of science (and the bible), and a personal belief system that is offended that you might be related to monkeys?

Yes, BJ has the knowledge gained in a few credit hours of introductory philosophy.  Quake with fear, evilutionists!

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,20:55   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 25 2010,20:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 25 2010,17:31)
Let's put it this way:

BJ, do you have anything for us other than vague references to things evolution can't do, a misunderstanding of science (and the bible), and a personal belief system that is offended that you might be related to monkeys?

Yes, BJ has the knowledge gained in a few credit hours of introductory philosophy.  Quake with fear, evilutionists!

No no, the '4' in the 4483 usually means it's a senior level class.  Therefore, he's smarter than every scientist in the world (except for Dr. Dr.).

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

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

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2010,22:43   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 25 2010,18:55)
Therefore, he's smarter than every scientist in the world (except for Dr. Dr.).

Since Dembski is not a scientist in any way, shape or form, BJ can pretend he is as smart as he wants.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
bjray



Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,00:12   

Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing? ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation. There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too. To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant, I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim. I misconstrue facts or arguments. I'm a typical creationists. I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).

BTW Texas Teach: 1) I've got more than "a few credit hours" of introductory philosophy. Might I inquire as to how many you've got under your belt, if any? 2) Yet again, I never claimed to be speaking Ex Cathedra about any of this.

You don't have to answer, because the point is I have enjoyed learning from many of you. Those who provided me with further reading material and explanation. And not simply repeating the same old cries of ignorance, ignorance, and more ignorance.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,00:45   

Quote (bjray @ April 25 2010,22:12)
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing? ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation. There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too.

The difference is we aren't trying to pass of handwaving bullshit as challenges to real science. There is a vast body of real science behind our position, which you could learn if only you put your mind to it. The problem is, whenever you've been confronted on any substantive point, you just go "oh I don't know the details" or jump to some new topic.

You have received some replies here that you might get from any semi-educated person (so yes, you could replace some of us with typical anti-creationists), but you've also been presented with detailed, specific responses to your claims by people who actually work in the fields in question. You've done nothing to reciprocate.
   
Quote

To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant,

Clearly demonstrated by your posts. Yes, you are ignorant of evolutionary theory, cosmology and paleontology at a minimum.

Note, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant. Everyone is ignorant of many things, and it's a curable condition. That brings us to the next point.
   
Quote

I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim.

Yup. It would be a good idea, if you don't wish to appear ignorant.
   
Quote

I'm a typical creationists.

Clearly demonstrated by your repetition of common, long refuted creationist nonsense (e.g. IC is a problem for evolution, speciation has never been observed, evolution can't explain morality) as well as your unwillingness to understand the topics you are making claims about.
   
Quote

I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).

Maybe you have a different definition of whining. *shrug*

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2162
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,00:57   

Quote (bjray @ April 25 2010,22:12)
You don't have to answer, because the point is I have enjoyed learning from many of you. Those who provided me with further reading material and explanation. And not simply repeating the same old cries of ignorance, ignorance, and more ignorance.

I dunno, man, if a lot of educated people called me ignorant, I'd consider the possibility that it's true.

I've made some blunders on these pages, been corrected, and am better educated for it.

And if I can do it, you can too.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4521
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,01:06   

BJRay:

Quote

BTW, your morality citations do not prove anything but that scientists have written on the matter. What's the foundation for? I propose it's non-material. IE: YOU WON"T FIND IT in some gene somewhere.


From NPR:

Quote

The problem is that Isabelle has Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder with a number of symptoms. The children are often physically small and often have developmental delays. But also, kids and adults with Williams love people and are pathologically trusting: They literally have no social fear.

Researchers theorize that this is probably because of a problem with the area in their brain that regulates the manufacture and release of oxytocin. Somehow, the system in which oxytocin operates has been disrupted in a way that makes it essentially biologically impossible for kids like Isabelle to distrust.


It turns out that our brains have a mechanism for trusting others, one that has a quite-evident biological (that is, material) basis.

This is not the only behavior that impacts morality that has a biological basis, not by a long shot. It's just one that was covered on the radio a couple of days ago.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4521
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,01:31   

Quote (Reed @ April 26 2010,00:45)
   
Quote (bjray @ April 25 2010,22:12)

To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant,

Clearly demonstrated by your posts. Yes, you are ignorant of evolutionary theory, cosmology and paleontology at a minimum.

What's most troubling about BJRay isn't the absolutely typical reliance on culturally-transmitted falsehoods. It's the complete lack of drive to examine any element of his/her own position. E.g., promoting irreducible complexity as an issue without having examined IC or CSI in any detail.

Look down in the comments on this post:

Quote

Actually, I think there is something to that claim. I think that the professional antievolutionists and evolution deniers make a livelihood of fostering ignorance of the sort that makes people like Q into stooges, so that when they confidently trot out the “magic bullets” that the professionals peddle, they fall flat on their face.

Quote

   I tend to think of SciCre argumentation, and even some of the ID argumentation, as a search for a “magic bullet”. By this, I don’t mean it in the sense that Ehrlich did when searching for a cure for syphilis. I mean it in the sense of werewolf movies. There, the magic bullet is simply a silver slug that will destroy the lycanthrope on contact. Those wielding the magic bullet need invest no other effort in dealing with the lycanthrope, are not required to be pure in spirit, and certainly have no need to *understand* lycanthropy in any deep sense. Similarly, the SciCre “professionals” are engaged in the peddling of “magic bullets”, which retain their magic only so long as they aren’t used on real lycanthropes. The magic bullet users, as Scott relates, remain secure in their faith that the evil lycanthropes can be held at bay or vanquished, right up until the time the magic bullet is fired — and is found to have lost its virtue.

   Instead of magic bullets like “too little moon dust” or “materialistic philosophy”, more good would come of trying to understand what exactly evolutionary biology is. As it is, creationist belief has tended more and more to resemble evolutionary biology. In little more than a century and a half, we have seen a change from general adherence to the doctrine of special creation to a range of beliefs, at the most different from evolutionary biology, creation of each separate “kind” (which when defined at all, tends to be defined such that the evolutionist term “clade” comes close to fitting the concept), and at the least different, a belief in physical common descent but separate imbuement of spirit.
   (Source)


I’d modify this previous statement by not quibbling over any difference between SciCre and ID argumentation, since further study has shown those to have a superset/subset relationship.

What does this incident prove? To me, it shows that “level of confidence” does not equal “level of knowledge”. The question was not merely “rambling”; it was deeply incoherent. “Aping” as a term means copying behavior from observation. Q appears to have been “aping” what he thought of as scientific discourse without any apparent understanding of how it actually is conducted.


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

    
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,02:11   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 25 2010,23:31)
It's the complete lack of drive to examine any element of his/her own position. E.g., promoting irreducible complexity as an issue without having examined IC or CSI in any detail.

Agreed. And perhaps worse, after being confronted with the various shortcomings of IC/CSI arguments (my bold):
         
Quote (bjray @ April 22 2010,21:41)

Btw, I will comment that I did read that the Dover case "proved" along with some other work that IC has already been proved that it COULD happen through natural causes. (ok, interesting stuff, I'll look more into that. Thanks.) This is not something earth-shattering to me. Matter a fact, I already knew that evolutionary proponents had written material attempting to explain their side. It's interesting stuff.

?
Then why did you bring IC up in the first place, bjray ? Are we expected to believe that you thoroughly analyzed these arguments and found them wanting ? Well no, you already admitted you didn't understand the ID side of the argument in depth, never mind the counter arguments.

Sigh. Creationists.

(side note, I brought up the Dover case, not because it "proved" this, but because the transcript provides a clear, easily accessible explanation of the point)

ETA:
I agree there is something to the "silver bullet" theory. I've seen much the same behavior from 9/11 "truthers" and similar.

  
Quack



Posts: 1802
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,04:13   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 26 2010,01:06)
BJRay:

     
Quote

BTW, your morality citations do not prove anything but that scientists have written on the matter. What's the foundation for? I propose it's non-material. IE: YOU WON"T FIND IT in some gene somewhere.


From NPR:

     
Quote

The problem is that Isabelle has Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder with a number of symptoms. The children are often physically small and often have developmental delays. But also, kids and adults with Williams love people and are pathologically trusting: They literally have no social fear.

Researchers theorize that this is probably because of a problem with the area in their brain that regulates the manufacture and release of oxytocin. Somehow, the system in which oxytocin operates has been disrupted in a way that makes it essentially biologically impossible for kids like Isabelle to distrust.


It turns out that our brains have a mechanism for trusting others, one that has a quite-evident biological (that is, material) basis.

This is not the only behavior that impacts morality that has a biological basis, not by a long shot. It's just one that was covered on the radio a couple of days ago.

May I offer this as further evidence: Children who form no racial sterotypes

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,04:37   

Quote
BTW, your morality citations do not prove anything but that scientists have written on the matter. What's the foundation for? I propose it's non-material. IE: YOU WON"T FIND IT in some gene somewhere.

I propose that it's foundation is green cheese.

Now, I've made a proposition, you've made a proposition.

If only there were some way that we could take these competing ideas and subject them to some sort of test, that way we could determine which one is supported by empirical evidence.

If only.....

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,06:21   

Quote (bjray @ April 26 2010,05:12)
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing? ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation. There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too. To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant, I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim. I misconstrue facts or arguments. I'm a typical creationists. I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).

BTW Texas Teach: 1) I've got more than "a few credit hours" of introductory philosophy. Might I inquire as to how many you've got under your belt, if any? 2) Yet again, I never claimed to be speaking Ex Cathedra about any of this.

You don't have to answer, because the point is I have enjoyed learning from many of you. Those who provided me with further reading material and explanation. And not simply repeating the same old cries of ignorance, ignorance, and more ignorance.

Hey, be fair. Some of us are mocking you.

After all, the most serious of my serious scientific colleagues regularly make mistakes like claiming that a dating method suitable for dating things on the order of tens of thousands of years throws up anomalous results when used to date objects that are tens of millions of years old (a mere three orders of magnitude out, not even a Dembski!) as if the technique were appropriate. Then subsequently claim this is because thousands upon thousands of relevantly qualified scientists chuck out these data because they don't fit some preconcieved dogma. Yup, that's what those serious, senior, scientific colleagues do....

...Oh no wait. They don't. In other news, you do love a false equivalence don't you?

If other people here want to take you seriously, that's up to them. Me, I'll take you seriously when you say something serious. Until then...

Louis

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,06:43   

Quote (bjray @ April 26 2010,00:12)
I'm ignorant, I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim. I misconstrue facts or arguments. I'm a typical creationists. I whine.

Yep, you are ignorant; you've proven it multiple times. Merely asserting that you are not ignorant will be insufficient. And yep, you whine, as is evidenced by this comment.

But most damningly, you don't seem to want to do anything substantive to correct that. Oh, you say that you read things, and understand that evilutionists "have written material to try to explain their side." But you don't seem to show any of the effects of understanding what you read. Reading isn't enough, bj. You have to think at the same time, and maybe think a bit more later. I don't see any evidence that you can do that.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an example of evidence that can't be explained by evolutionary theory and has therefore been "thrown out". I do hope it is more informed than your 14C/dinosaur bone canard, but I admit I am not optimistic that you will even reach that low bar.

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,08:23   

BJ, there may be something that you aren't quite clear on.

This is science, not philosophy, not religion, not even sociology.  Evolution, cosmology, physics and the like are science.  The rules are very different.  Every statement you say in regards to these subjects are expected to have significant evidential support.

If you want to talk about science, then you must play by science rules.  That's something that Behe, Dembski, and Meyer just don't get.  They think that they can change what science is and that will allow ID to be taught in schools.  They continually fail to do so.

You are the one bucking 150 years of scientific evidence.  And all you can do is complain about how we expect evidence.  

You are the one who has made at least 3 very bold claims.  And when asked to show evidence that supports them, you ignore those questions.

In fact, I've asked you a dozen or so questions.  And you have ignored every one of them.

I was a science teacher until recently.  I provided a pedalogical tool to help you begin to learn.  And you ignored it, to complain about how people think you're ignorant.

Go back and read (hah!) some of the other 'debate' threads.  Floyd Lee, AFDave, JoeG all have some threads on this board and they are long and detailed.  I've read them, all the way through.  I suggest you do so as well.  It might give you a better understanding of what we go through.  

You may think that this is all new and you think your arguments are great.  They are not new.  I've been doing this for almost 20 years and I haven't heard anything new in quite a while.  Some of the guys on this board have been doing this even longer.

A last appeal for education

BJ, you are the only one that can change your ignorance... if you want to.

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

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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,09:38   

Although I think everyone is getting their hopes up a bit too much regarding Bj, I will propose this:

Ask him a single question, a relevant one that he won't escape, and wait for him to answer. Not n^5 questions, just one everyone agrees on.

Ignore whatever other drivell he's trying to insert here.

Then we'll all know if he's being honest or not...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,09:45   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,14:38)
Although I think everyone is getting their hopes up a bit too much regarding Bj, I will propose this:

Ask him a single question, a relevant one that he won't escape, and wait for him to answer. Not n^5 questions, just one everyone agrees on.

Ignore whatever other drivell he's trying to insert here.

Then we'll all know if he's being honest or not...

Seconded.

Louis

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,09:54   

While I agree in principle, the question is what to ask.  He's already admitted that he doesn't know anything about ID.  He doesn't really know anything about science.

Do we go philosophical/theological?

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

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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,09:58   

For the question, maybe a MP would be fine?

Cubist or Ogre, or Wes have had tremendous repies posted here. Maybe one of them should propose, and then everyone will follow?

Let's have one of the 3 main protagonists (sorry others, but this is just how it seems to me) decide what the question will be...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:04   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,14:58)
For the question, maybe a MP would be fine?

Cubist or Ogre, or Wes have had tremendous repies posted here. Maybe one of them should propose, and then everyone will follow?

Let's have one of the 3 main protagonists (sorry others, but this is just how it seems to me) decide what the question will be...

Sounds fair to me. I shall instigate an immediate and total mockery suspension on my part. Not even a LOLcat. Even if I really want to.

Louis

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 26 2010,07:54)
While I agree in principle, the question is what to ask.  He's already admitted that he doesn't know anything about ID.  He doesn't really know anything about science.

Do we go philosophical/theological?

I see a similar dilemma. If we were to ask a question about science, we already know that BJ cannot offer an answer. They have also stated they are unfamiliar with ID creationist writing, even his professor's. I could not care less about BJ's theology, and philosophy is best done drunk.

As a method to further dialog hopefully to teach, asking questions is fine if one can expect some sort of honest reply.

How about, "What is a Species?" With the recommended reading:
"What is a Species, and What is Not?" by Ernst Mayr.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:10   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 26 2010,15:05)
[SNIP]

...and philosophy is best done drunk.

[SNIP]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'll have a pint of creme de menthe and a copy of Critique of Pure Reason please.

And I agree with the choice of question btw.

Louis

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:11   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 26 2010,16:05)
How about, "What is a Species?" With the recommended reading:
"What is a Species, and What is Not?" by Ernst Mayr.

I'm all for it!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:29   

Works for me...

what is a species?

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

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

   
khan



Posts: 1486
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:47   

Quote (Louis @ April 26 2010,07:21)
Quote (bjray @ April 26 2010,05:12)
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing? ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation. There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too. To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant, I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim. I misconstrue facts or arguments. I'm a typical creationists. I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).

BTW Texas Teach: 1) I've got more than "a few credit hours" of introductory philosophy. Might I inquire as to how many you've got under your belt, if any? 2) Yet again, I never claimed to be speaking Ex Cathedra about any of this.

You don't have to answer, because the point is I have enjoyed learning from many of you. Those who provided me with further reading material and explanation. And not simply repeating the same old cries of ignorance, ignorance, and more ignorance.

Hey, be fair. Some of us are mocking you.

After all, the most serious of my serious scientific colleagues regularly make mistakes like claiming that a dating method suitable for dating things on the order of tens of thousands of years throws up anomalous results when used to date objects that are tens of millions of years old (a mere three orders of magnitude out, not even a Dembski!) as if the technique were appropriate. Then subsequently claim this is because thousands upon thousands of relevantly qualified scientists chuck out these data because they don't fit some preconcieved dogma. Yup, that's what those serious, senior, scientific colleagues do....

...Oh no wait. They don't. In other news, you do love a false equivalence don't you?

If other people here want to take you seriously, that's up to them. Me, I'll take you seriously when you say something serious. Until then...

Louis

I might start taking them seriously if they stop lying.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,10:55   

Quote (khan @ April 26 2010,10:47)
I might start taking them seriously if they stop lying.

and whining about how mean it is when you point out their lies...

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 26 2010,10:29)

BJ, I'd like to point something else out.  Personally, I like to debate.  But I like the debate to be a valuable learning experience for both sides.  

For example, in a recent debate on another forum, we had quite the discussion on whether wind power is the future of energy.  I could have easily taken either side, but I happen to use wind energy so I took that side.  

I learned quite a bit and my research further supported my contention that wind energy is going to be a huge part of the future energy of the world.

On the other hand, when we get to debates like this about evolution and ID, it normally breaks down to a very common sequence (it has been referenced on this thread already).  That sequence is annoying because one side isn't doing any learning (pro-ID) and has nothing to teach (also pro-ID).  

So all we get out of it is the faint hope that the debater will actually learn something and that any lurkers will get the benefit of knowing that the pro-ID arguments are junk.

I would really suggest you reread this entire thread as an uninterested observer and just look at the various responses both sides give to questions.

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 26 2010,15:29)
Works for me...

what is a species?

It's a badly spelled sign of the zodiac.

HTH HAND

Louis

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:07   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 24 2010,16:13)

Quote
PS: This is not an example of a "transitional species."



But c'mon, admit it...it would be a really COOL one!  :D

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:11   

Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,16:23)

Quote
And just so you know, as long as their is breath in my lungs, if my child's school board attempts to not teach weaknesses of any side, especially evolution (why because it is the primary scientific theory taught, not just one I randomly chose to "pick on"). Then I'll teach them myself.


Except that you've demonstrated that you don't actually have any weaknesses, only erroneous propaganda and lies. What's the point of "teaching" your child things obviously way outside your knowledge and interest when such has lead you to such erroneous conclusions?

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

  
  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (15) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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