RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,17:55   

page bump

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3490
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,21:40   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)
Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.

You ARE old, Doc....lol...

OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?ÖAnd cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine ďthat so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.Ē

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] http://www.theism.net/article....le....2
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)

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

Jerry, before I have to stick a fork into this overcooked forum then call it done, I wanted to let you know that (from what this forum was saying about you) I was impressed by your answers. Earlier on you were discussing quantum mechanics and right away this illustration for showing that relationship came to my mind:


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

Personally, I do not see the ďCreatorĒ being intelligent as we are, does not have to be to ďcreateĒ life. Something intelligent starts off its life knowing nothing at all, has to learn from scratch. Something all-knowing would simply exist. †An always was, and always will be, sort of thing.

One area I did disagree with is there not being or needing a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Without it there is no way of knowing who is making more sense. In fact (although I still do not see a coherent theory from elsewhere) I used to be on the other side of the argument parroting ďID is not scienceĒ and the other slogans I picked up on the internet. That began to change after I realized that I had what I needed to clinch the theory. After following the evidence with it, I had to admit that it was an excellent scientific challenge.

The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didnít have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. Iím also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a personís soul. Itís often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then itís possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow.

But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,21:44   

all science so far!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3490
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,21:59   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 29 2012,21:44)
all science so far!

Science is here:


Theory Of Intelligent Design

And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator. Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings. And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,23:22   

So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3490
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,23:30   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 29 2012,23:22)
So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!

Yes you need to take a shower. Even your reply stinks, really bad.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1515
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2012,23:33   

Damn. †Just how big an attention whore does Laddy GaGa have to be to start trolling after another moronic Creationist wackaloon?

:O

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2313
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,01:00   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 29 2012,21:33)
Damn. †Just how big an attention whore does Laddy GaGa have to be to start trolling after another moronic Creationist wackaloon?

:O

Pass the popcorn.  Looking forward to some hot loon-on-loon action.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,01:22   

I for one think that Gary has made a significant contribution to this thread.  I think that we should now give Jerry plenty of space and opportunity, free of distraction, to respond to Gary's eloquently stated position.

Lurking in anticipation...

  
Quack



Posts: 1801
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,04:19   

I'll just lean back and enjoy the fireworks!

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,12:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,23:30)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 29 2012,23:22)
So, this is like Joe G and FtK on a date.

Uh, l8r, folks, I need to take a shower!

Yes you need to take a shower. Even your reply stinks, really bad.

Awww, poor widdle fuckwit is angwy!  Boo hoo!

Just because Jerry gets to be JoeG and you have to squeeze into a pair of FtK's overalls you feelwings is hurt!

Try singing "I Feel Pretty" to yourself and you'll be OK.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,12:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,22:59)

Jerry Don, old buddy, what say ye THIS??!?!!!??

BEHOLD!!!!1!!!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,13:07   

I'll get to it......*wink* Duty calls for now........

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1515
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,13:22   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 30 2012,13:07)
I'll get to it......*wink* Duty calls for now........

You misspelled doody.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2162
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,14:12   

Andy Dick, meet French Stewart.

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

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,14:15   

Anybody know how to get in touch with Louis (or have a better handle on the chemistry than I do)? I tried google but I can't find anything I understand wrt "ground state diasteriomers." I can only assume in special cases there's some stabilization going on, depending on the conformation but I dunno.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,14:53   

oh man please introduce louis to these twanks

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,15:19   

Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

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

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

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,15:52   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks

LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me.  :)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ?  :p

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,15:59   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 30 2012,16:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks

LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me. †:)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ? †:p

i just wish he would return to our postgender clubhouse and be ugly to some people using his funny british talk

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
stevestory



Posts: 9021
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,16:42   

Quote (raguel @ Nov. 30 2012,16:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks

LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me. †:)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ? †:p

it's a twink who's a skank.

(according to Sweet Dee)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,16:52   

There's a fire at a fertility clininc. You are in charge. there is only time to save either 10,000 embryos or 1 lab assistant. Which do you choose?

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,16:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 30 2012,16:52)
There's a fire at a fertility clininc. You are in charge. there is only time to save either 10,000 embryos or 1 lab assistant. Which do you choose?

Is the lab assistant cute?

--------------
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: Nov. 30 2012,17:29   

Embryos are about $1000 a pop and lab assistants are a dime a dozen.  Simple economics.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 899
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,17:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,14:59)
And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator.

Well, he didn't, not in the way you imply. But that's not the point. The point is: so what if he did? Would that make evolution something less than a fact? What if he recanted his theory on his deathbed (another creationist favorite falsehood)? Wouldn't make it any less valid. In fact if Charles Darwin had never been born modern science would look very much as it does now, and we would still have creationists here today, railing against Wallace or whoever else had come to prominence in the early days of evolutionary discovery.
† †  
Quote
Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings.

Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.
† †  
Quote
And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.

Yawn. You really have a poor grasp on logic. Darwin's background simply doesn't matter. What matters is his contribution to science, which was huge and profound.

--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,19:04   

I'm getting confused!  Whose thread is this, anyway?

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1072
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,20:59   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 30 2012,19:04)
I'm getting confused! †Whose thread is this, anyway?

Joe G's or FtK's?

Seriously, you two, get a room!

The magic moment when they found that room.

--------------
"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: Nov. 30 2012,21:32   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2012,15:19)
Question,

If I understand this correctly, according to CSI, a protein with odds of random construction of 3X10^34 is not designed.

Correct?

Still waiting on this one.  It's very important.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,23:01   

Quote
Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.

Yeah, anti-evolutionists in general come much closer to worshiping Darwin than scientists do. Some of them routinely claim that he has all sorts of influence on people, during and after his time, and maybe even before it. (And never mind that evolution would be a logical consequence of genetic theory even if nobody had thought of it before that was understood.)

Henry

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3490
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2012,01:32   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
† † †  
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,14:59)
And by the way, Charles Darwin said that evolution was created by the Creator.

Well, he didn't, not in the way you imply. But that's not the point. The point is: so what if he did? Would that make evolution something less than a fact? What if he recanted his theory on his deathbed (another creationist favorite falsehood)? Wouldn't make it any less valid.


I had to paraphrase that one:

†  
Quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." †

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav.....av....]


This certainly dispels the myth that Charles Darwin was an Atheist. Needing that as the mechanism for the origin of life made it a very religious theory, and essentially still is. Those who accuse me of having a religious agenda/theory do not know that where the same standard is applied evenly to both sides, the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent is far more scientific than the theory Charles Darwin wrote.

†  
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
In fact if Charles Darwin had never been born modern science would look very much as it does now, and we would still have creationists here today, railing against Wallace or whoever else had come to prominence in the early days of evolutionary discovery.


After having read how that concept was explained in a WW2 era German science teacher manual, there is no doubt that it was at least very useful for the justification of Concentration Camps. It was believed that having been originally breathed by the Creator made them a Master Race which did not evolve while evolution turned all others into feeble minded apish creatures who they were obliged to exterminate.

†  
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
†  
Quote
Therefore the theory you believe in is equally religious, or even more religious when Theistic Evolutionists are considered due to their creating a whole new religion from his teachings.

Darwin's teachings? This really shines the lights on your creationist mindset. Evolutionists; that is, people who accept that modern science has got things mostly right, are often religious - Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Sikh, you name it, but no one looks to Darwin as any sort of messiah figure.


A number of religions (and many who say they have no religion) practice "hero worship" of Charles Darwin. It is also a way to use the public schools to degrade those who do not follow their ideology/religion.

Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 30 2012,17:47)
† †
Quote
And Charles only had a divinity degree, not a science degree. Therefore according to your standard he was not a scientist, only a clergyman.

Yawn. You really have a poor grasp on logic. Darwin's background simply doesn't matter. What matters is his contribution to science, which was huge and profound.


I agree that what should be most important is not a science degree, it should be what one contributes to science. But that is not how the science world now works. Academia now controls who may receive funding and who are considered qualified for jobs by selling credentials/entitlement. As an "individual" I am not even allowed to receive funding. It's only a waste of time for me to apply for grants. And you are not the one with a paycheck that can't be cashed from a struggling company, who is living in poverty and going hungry right now because of your science/religion politics.

Places like this forum exist for the purpose of forever keeping me down, until I'm totally destroyed. My crime, is not doing as Wesley and other so-called science experts dictated. It's now payback time, for years of purposely making my life hell, all in the name of Charles Darwin and your scientific politics which do not allow any theory to come before the one which is now revered.

This dumb-down of science has received billions of dollars to promote and protect. You have no idea how much of a disgrace that actually is, and how angry I am at the hypocrisy.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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