Joined: Nov. 2006
I've just been reading about the knockout procedure. Apparently, if I've got it right, the genes/sequences aren't actually removed, they are 'disrupted' or corrupted (mutated) by a recombinant plasmid. Then it takes a breeding cycle to get a mouse (diploid) that has two copies of the mutant gene/sequence.
Anyway, why should it matter if 85% (or 100%) of the NAS were atheist?
Does UD think that believing in Jesus Christ as your messiah makes you a better scientist or something? After all, UD and ID is all about that hard math and science.
The comments tell it all.
If only we could live in such an Eden.
I think Ruse is right. They have left science in the dust and treat atheism as the world religion….
Comment by rpf_ID — December 7, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
That's right. If you believe what you see with your eyes, you can't teach it in public schools.
Wouldn’t all these admissions be grounds to get materialism thrown out of science classes as a religion ? Surely if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.
Comment by jwrennie — December 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
That's right. It's a "culture war."
This is all shaping up to be a far more interesting debate than just ID/evolution.
Comment by TomG — December 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
Drew Brees, Joe Horn, and Reggie Bush? Those hard math and science types usually learned their hard math and science from the Bible in public schools.
|As far as I know, the Bible is the only book prohibited by the courts from being used in schools.|
OK, the Lives of the Saints would probably be prohibited.
Yup, if you believe evolution is true, then you must not have faith in god.
|It’s fine for Krauss if scientists are “doing science” and still have faith in god? Well not really. It depends on whether or not those scientists speak out against materialist dogma and it’s grand unifying theory; evolution.|
That's teh best.
|It’s funny how he equates faith in god as something people make up in order to rationalize their lives. I wonder how he thinks that occurs? Can you decide to believe in something if you don’t believe in it? It just shows how little these guys know when it comes to the humanities and philosophy.|
Mentok is the ID guidance counselor now.
|These guys want to be the spiritual and philosophical leaders of society when in fact they are woefully ignorant of most anything beyond their limited fields of research and usually are not well rounded even in that.|
This type of so-called “science” is going to put itself right out of a job. It’s like these guys all suffer from a disease that makes them incapable of learning from the mistakes of history. The arrogance and elitism displayed by types like Tyson is astounding and IMHO rather foolish. But what do I know? I usually vote Republican.
Comment by shaner74 — December 7, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
HA HA HA HA! Of course you do.
The funny thing is that I'm sure this comment has nothing to do with Mark Foley.
“I usually vote Republican.”
Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes!
Comment by JasonTheGreek — December 7, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
And we have a little projection here. I think that's what Dembski and Behe's problem is. They don't really believe in God enough, so they go looking for proof or evidence, anything they can get their hands on, that says there just may well be a god. O ye of little faith in what you don't really believe in. Talk to mentok, he'll straighten you out. And be a little more well-rounded while your at it.
|I think Francis “I invented science” Bacon said it best when he argued that the need athiests have to convert others stems from the insecurity of not actually being convinced of it themselves.|
|Atheists are trying to get a revival going.|
| Only problem is there is nothing to revive.|
“Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes!”
Can’t blame my behavior on me - it’s just evolution at work preserving my selfish genes!
Comment by shaner74 — December 8, 2006 @ 7:42 am
Mark Foley: What are you wearing right now?
kid: Selfish genes.
Mark Foley: Cool.
mjb2001, your days on UD are numbered.
|The problem is, when you set yourself up either explicitly or implicitly to say that God is evident via the scientific method, the only loser is God. And I believe that that is what ID theory indeed sets up. Because if tomorrow morning we wake up and find out that science has proven William Dembski wrong, the faithful are either going to have to reject science or God.|
Eh, Maybe you'll be at UD longer than I thought.
|religion tells us how and why we became human.|
I think Jason the Greek hit on the central misunderstanding that leads to ID thinking.
That's called the God of the Gaps argument and it's what YOU DO. It's how YOU think, as in how ID bots think. SHEESH! If we don't know how something happened, the God must have done it! RIGHT?
|Supernatural is a meaningless term in my view. It simply means ’something we don’t fully understand yet via science.’|
DI or somebody should define what Supernatural means in ID theory.
Comment by Collin — December 8, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg