RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 >   
  Topic: Kent Hovind on tape, Direct from jail< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:33   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,10:15)
 
Quote (Nerull @ July 01 2008,09:31)
You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?

Nerull?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerull

I take it you play DnD.  How do you like 4.0?  I like 3.5 much better.

Not much better?  Okay.

Evolution works by animals changing.  New species being made (and you've seen this when?) from old ones.  The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.

Transitional Fossil?  Where?

Oh, so no "Poof".  Well, in the class I was at, we learned about "Punctuated Equilibrium".  Wow.  There's a novel approach.  Things happen so fast that there are no fossils and this is from an evolutionist (rest his soul and may God forgive him and his atheism)!  So Evolution doesn't need Transitional Fossils now!  Again, where are these "transitional fossils"?

Well the E. Coli changed but it's still E. Coli!  So there's no evolution.  They may have had a trait come in from being dormant but how is that evolution when the culture is still E Coli?

The Horse Cart to a Car.  good analogy.  At each point in the design was there intelligence doing the changes.  Which is what ID is all about.

The predictive power of ID is powerful as it is simple:

When systems become so complex that one parts falls away, it stops working so how does it get to be in the first place?  The answer, "It was designed that way".

 
Quote
The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.


Please tell me how much "information" there is in a particular organism that you choose.

Then please tell me how you have determined

a) The amount of information in that organism
b) What units this "information" is measured in
c) How you determined the amount of information in the organism you chose.
d) How you measured the decease or loss of information.

I don't believe you can even prove that there is information in a organism, let alone prove that a measurable loss occurred. Can you?

I ask again, what units is this information loss (when codes get muddled and broken) measured in?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:37   

Quote
I ask again, what units is this information loss (when codes get muddled and broken) measured in?


I propose Hovinds.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:38   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,06:55)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 30 2008,22:23)
I'm not buying that Vacation Bible School points people to the TOA.

Most antievolution sites can't muster the gumption to link to the TOA or any other mainstream science sources.

Actually that was addressed during the class.  For too long, the internet had been used to lie about many things.  One of those things is the so called "overwhelming proof" of evolution.  Well I don't see and be honest, neither do you.


I see quite enough to convince people without an ideological precommitment that evolutionary science has made its case beyond reasonable doubt. That leaves the folks with unreasonable doubts unconvinced.

Quote

Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.


Oh, boy. Don't act like there's only been invective flowing in one direction.

Quote

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.


If you like falsehoods, it sounds like you've hit the jackpot.

Quote

What is most interesting sir, and your name did come up if that makes you feel special, was the amount of money spent on trying to prove evolution.  Why is that sir?  If you think it's already true, then why do you guys feel the need to keep on trying to prove it?


My activist role isn't about "proving evolution". In that, I'm countering a corrupt socio-political program that aims to tell falsehoods to students in the guise of sham labels for religiously-motivated antievolution arguments.

Quote

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.


Most graduate students in evolutionary science manage to publish research papers, and many of them get just the support departments offer in the way of teaching assistant or research assistant stipends. And those aren't much, I can tell you. Back around 2002, the DI CRSC was handing out $40K/year fellowships for the IDC advocates to write op-eds, books, and do public speaking... at least, that's what they did with the money. You could fund two or sometimes three graduate students in evolutionary science for that amount of dough. Why are IDC advocates at that level (many if not all of them with terminal degrees) so much *less* productive, research-wise, than ordinary graduate students in mainstream science?

As I put it, maybe the DI CRSC was funding the wrong people. DI CRSC Fellow Paul Nelson was sitting next to the podium during my talk, and he just gave me a wounded look at that point.

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

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,10:39   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 01 2008,10:37)
Quote
I ask again, what units is this information loss (when codes get muddled and broken) measured in?


I propose Hovinds.

I love it!

Several Hovinds of information were lost when the beetle kind radiated out into all the beetles we see today. Ancestral Beetle Kinds have their full compliment of Hovinds.

Works for me! :)

LCD, any news on how you are measuring this "loss of information" when mutations break things?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:09   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:55)
I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

While your track record of ignoring questions addressed to you is pretty much what we expected, it's probably best for your sake if you didn't spend too much time on this idea of other people "believing things they haven't seen".

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

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,10:33)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,10:15)
   
Quote (Nerull @ July 01 2008,09:31)
You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?

Nerull?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerull

I take it you play DnD.  How do you like 4.0?  I like 3.5 much better.

Not much better?  Okay.

Evolution works by animals changing.  New species being made (and you've seen this when?) from old ones.  The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.

Transitional Fossil?  Where?

Oh, so no "Poof".  Well, in the class I was at, we learned about "Punctuated Equilibrium".  Wow.  There's a novel approach.  Things happen so fast that there are no fossils and this is from an evolutionist (rest his soul and may God forgive him and his atheism)!  So Evolution doesn't need Transitional Fossils now!  Again, where are these "transitional fossils"?

Well the E. Coli changed but it's still E. Coli!  So there's no evolution.  They may have had a trait come in from being dormant but how is that evolution when the culture is still E Coli?

The Horse Cart to a Car.  good analogy.  At each point in the design was there intelligence doing the changes.  Which is what ID is all about.

The predictive power of ID is powerful as it is simple:

When systems become so complex that one parts falls away, it stops working so how does it get to be in the first place?  The answer, "It was designed that way".

   
Quote
The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.


Please tell me how much "information" there is in a particular organism that you choose.

Then please tell me how you have determined

a) The amount of information in that organism
b) What units this "information" is measured in
c) How you determined the amount of information in the organism you chose.
d) How you measured the decease or loss of information.

I don't believe you can even prove that there is information in a organism, let alone prove that a measurable loss occurred. Can you?

I ask again, what units is this information loss (when codes get muddled and broken) measured in?

I heard someone using "bits" to measure that, although I after I asked more about it (how do you measure it, where does it come from, where are the publications about it, etc etc) it became awfully silent as usual. The only "bits" I've ever seen in something actually scientific, was in an online sequencing program (I think BLAST but I'm not sure) a while ago. Can't remember exactly in wich context though.

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:25   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,11:09)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:55)
I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

While your track record of ignoring questions addressed to you is pretty much what we expected, it's probably best for your sake if you didn't spend too much time on this idea of other people "believing things they haven't seen".

I get asked a lot of questions.  I also am trying to do my job.  I will answer what I can to the best of my ability.

So forgive me if I can't always meet your timetable.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:28   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,12:25)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,11:09)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:55)
I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

While your track record of ignoring questions addressed to you is pretty much what we expected, it's probably best for your sake if you didn't spend too much time on this idea of other people "believing things they haven't seen".

I get asked a lot of questions.  I also am trying to do my job.  I will answer what I can to the best of my ability.

So forgive me if I can't always meet your timetable.

No big rush.  It's not like these are new questions that have never been asked.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:38   

I am just burning to know how many "kinds" there are and how a Baraminologist  :p  classifies animals into their respective "kinds".  For a burgeoning science, Baraminology doesn't seem to have any set rules.  How odd.  Not.

Point of fact, if the creationist morons had just stuck to the miracle of "God did it" and not tried to invent science-like shit to explain something as incredibly stupid and impossible as a global flood which wiped out all living things except two of each animal (without leaving a trace!) they wouldn't be forced to pull things like "kinds" out of their asses.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:49   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,09:28)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,12:25)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,11:09)
 
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:55)
I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

While your track record of ignoring questions addressed to you is pretty much what we expected, it's probably best for your sake if you didn't spend too much time on this idea of other people "believing things they haven't seen".

I get asked a lot of questions.  I also am trying to do my job.  I will answer what I can to the best of my ability.

So forgive me if I can't always meet your timetable.

No big rush.  It's not like these are new questions that have never been asked.

And our expectations are admittedly pretty low.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:53   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:32)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 30 2008,21:52)
I just noticed that lcd's grammar and spelling improved a lot during his time here. Funny, that.

Yup,

As I was being mocked for poor spelling, I never was very good at it, I decided to run my posts in Word first.  A bunch of helpful stuff there.  I especially like the stuff where it shows you spelled the word right but it's the wrong word.

Like write and right, their and there.

It seems to have done wonders for your grammar and sentence structure, too.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,11:58   

LCD - another challenge for you!

Pick a single thing. Anything. It's up to you.

Show us

a) What ID or creationism predicts regarding that.
b) What "evolution" predicts regarding that.

And then show us why the answer is more accurate for A then B.

For example.

A global flood.

Creationism predicts that fossils will be found all mixed together due to the flood waters being chaotic, but with filtering by size (smallest to largest) when they settled and fossilized.

Evolution predicts that fossils will be found in chronological order, not size order.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,12:12   

Very interesting that this fellow is a fan of Kids4truth, since that organization's founder got his antievolution start right here at AtBC! Shall we dig up the blatant lies of AFDave / Dave Hawkins? Shouldn't take too long.

Edit: Ah, a little more reading before posting was warranted. Poor parody.

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

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,12:19   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:55)
Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

[snip]

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

This is the first time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  You did it and you tied it to Creationism.

   
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:13)
But as many have said before ID is not religious.

This is the second time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  And, again, you did it.  Is this the talking point you've wanted to get to all along?  Anyway, before these comments you wrote:

   
Quote (lcd @ June 30 2008,22:10)
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  After all, look at Stalin, Mao and other atheists who supported evolution.  Granted it may not be what you guys now have put on the mantle of your altar of science now, evolution can never be disproved as it is always shifting the goal posts, but they were atheists and as atheists they sure as heck didn't believe in Creation now did they?

I don't agree with you, but I'll set that aside for the moment.  In your opinion, can atheists believe in ID?  You say that evolution is "the idea that we have no meaning" and that it "must be defeated".  Defeated by what?  Non-religious ID?  Does non-religious ID offer "the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth"?  What meaning does ID offer for we humans or life in general - and how does ID come to that conclusion?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,12:34   

To add this to the pile of questions LCD won't adequately answer:

 
Quote
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  


There are millions of Christians who accept evolution. Therefore your dichotomy of "the opposite of Christian is Darwinist" is bogus.

Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

And if ID has nothing to do with religion, why do no nonreligious people accept it?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

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

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,12:41   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,11:53)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,04:32)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 30 2008,21:52)
I just noticed that lcd's grammar and spelling improved a lot during his time here. Funny, that.

Yup,

As I was being mocked for poor spelling, I never was very good at it, I decided to run my posts in Word first.  A bunch of helpful stuff there.  I especially like the stuff where it shows you spelled the word right but it's the wrong word.

Like write and right, their and there.

It seems to have done wonders for your grammar and sentence structure, too.

Glad you noticed.  I will admit in being tired, sore and a bit when I was just typing too quickly.  So as not to offend you anymore and make you think that I'm flip flopping, I won't post unless I think its really needed when I'm tired.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,12:46   

Instead of using this apparent troll as a creationist chew toy, I recommend going to real creationists and responding to them. I have taken to registering at newspapers following evo/creato articles and responding to the comments. Few sites allow links, and none allow using jpegs, but they are where the creatos really are.

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

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,12:59   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,10:41)
Glad you noticed.  I will admit in being tired, sore and a bit when I was just typing too quickly.  So as not to offend you anymore and make you think that I'm flip flopping, I won't post unless I think its really needed when I'm tired.

I wouldn't say that you're 'offending' anyone here.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:02   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,18:59)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,10:41)
Glad you noticed.  I will admit in being tired, sore and a bit when I was just typing too quickly.  So as not to offend you anymore and make you think that I'm flip flopping, I won't post unless I think its really needed when I'm tired.

I wouldn't say that you're 'offending' anyone here.

Yup, "offending" is definitely the wrong word. "Conforming to the very predictable patterns of standard creationist drivel to the extent that LCD is boring" is a better choice of terminology. Not as snappy I grant you, but much more accurate.

Louis

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

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:03   

To all, especially oldmanintheskydidntdoit


What would you take as evidence?  I can hear all of you now, "Another ID dodge".  This is not the case.  More than a few other Creationists and IDists may have tried, it seems too many times they get ridiculed or shouted down.

So what would you people take?  Things such as Dembski's Design Filter can be used, although it may need to be perfected.  Is that a problem?  Why is Evolution allowed to change stripes, "Punctuated Equilibrium", no wait, "Gradualism", oh that don't work, back to "Uniformism"?  It seems as those ID Theories, some of which may be still being built upon, doesn't get the same respect.

When it comes to Information contained in DNA, it is obvious it exists.  Without that Information, there would be no inherited traits.  A Palm Tree in such a situation can produce seeds that grow an Elm.  Without information in DNA, Monkeys could really give birth to humans and an E. Coli can divide and instead of two E Coli cells, you have an embryonic cat on one side and a dog on the other.

So from that we know there is information contained in the DNA.

Information, can and does get lost.  A strand of DNA doesn't replicate correctly and the sites in the genes that tells a cell to stop dividing gets lost.  So now you have a cancer cell.  The loss of that information prevents it from no longer being able to stop multiplying.  Loss of info must be a bad thing.

So how does one measure the information in DNA?  Good question and  I don't rightly know.  I guess it would take time and money.  From the other thread, one scientist was given 20 years to try and change E. Coli into something else.  All he was able to do was change what they eat.  Is that a change or loss of information?  I'd say loss as it seems to state that the "new strain" of E. Coli doesn't do as well when there's both forms of nutrition for all the E. Coli to consume.

I stated previously about the amount of money given to do dogmatic Evolutionary Science.  Why don't we try giving ARN or DI 20 years and lots of taxpayer money to come up with something in 20 years?

Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:08   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,12:34)
To add this to the pile of questions LCD won't adequately answer:

   
Quote
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  


There are millions of Christians who accept evolution. Therefore your dichotomy of "the opposite of Christian is Darwinist" is bogus.

Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

And if ID has nothing to do with religion, why do no nonreligious people accept it?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

Real Christians follow God's Word and believe it as such.  If you're going to say, "Well lot's of Christians feel that Evolution and the Bible can both exist", obviously aren't.

I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:16   

Quote (Gunthernacus @ July 01 2008,12:19)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,07:55)
Like the guy who came and taught, he was from a local college, about the problems with evolution, he said not to fear sites like these.  The worst he said was to endure mocking from many at a place such as this.  Boy was he right.

But we did spend a lot of time looking over the great stuff that is on the internet, like Trueorigins, Institute for Creation Research and even places like kids4truth.com, which my kids really like.

[snip]

I wonder what we'd find from the ID/Creation side if they had half the money you guys get trying to prove something nobody has ever seen.

This is the first time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  You did it and you tied it to Creationism.

   
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,08:13)
But as many have said before ID is not religious.

This is the second time in your participation on this thread that ID has been brought up.  And, again, you did it.  Is this the talking point you've wanted to get to all along?  Anyway, before these comments you wrote:

   
Quote (lcd @ June 30 2008,22:10)
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  After all, look at Stalin, Mao and other atheists who supported evolution.  Granted it may not be what you guys now have put on the mantle of your altar of science now, evolution can never be disproved as it is always shifting the goal posts, but they were atheists and as atheists they sure as heck didn't believe in Creation now did they?

I don't agree with you, but I'll set that aside for the moment.  In your opinion, can atheists believe in ID?  You say that evolution is "the idea that we have no meaning" and that it "must be defeated".  Defeated by what?  Non-religious ID?  Does non-religious ID offer "the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth"?  What meaning does ID offer for we humans or life in general - and how does ID come to that conclusion?

Here's a shock for you.

I have no problem confirming that ID is part of Creationism.  What I don't agree with though is that without the Bible, ID would fall apart.

I feel just the opposite.  Imagine a world where God unknown and Jesus hadn't saved anyone.  A truly terrible place.  I could see real scientists looking for better ways to kill other people for their evil governments and looking into bio warfare.

The goal is to "build a better bug".  The scientists start and some of them notice the unmistakable signs of design in these microbes.  Their conclusion is that someone already designed them.  Perhaps that is what can help them discover God and all of His Glory.

So ID can lead people back to God and His Word as well as His Word leading people to ID and His Creation.

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:21   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,12:34)
Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

For these questions:

#1:  Many of them are well meaning but confused.  I'm sure many feel that to be accepted they must conform to some notion of what it means to be sophisticated.

#2:  Using Hitler, I was taught, is wrong to lump him with evolution.  Hitler wasn't an atheist.  He was some kind of Pagan/New Age/Catholic Cult who tried to change religion into his own ideals.  Besides there's that thing that when one starts comparing others to Nazis or Hitler, they automatically lose.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:22   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,11:08)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,12:34)
To add this to the pile of questions LCD won't adequately answer:

       
Quote
Without the guidance of God's word supplemented by Christ's time on Earth, we would have killed ourselves off.  That is why Evolution, the idea that we have no meaning, must be defeated.  


There are millions of Christians who accept evolution. Therefore your dichotomy of "the opposite of Christian is Darwinist" is bogus.

Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

And if ID has nothing to do with religion, why do no nonreligious people accept it?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

Real Christians follow God's Word and believe it as such.  If you're going to say, "Well lot's of Christians feel that Evolution and the Bible can both exist", obviously aren't.


It's not so obvious to millions of people, including Christians.

So Christians who accept evolution aren't REAL Christians? Is that the statement you're signing on to?

Who gets to pick? You?

As you know, the Vatican has come out in support of evolution. Are Catholics not 'real Christians'?

Michael Behe has conceded common descent. Is he not a 'real Christian'?

   
Quote
I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?


Do you keep kosher?

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:25   

Quote

I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?


Yeah, tell those nasty bishops at Hippo what for!

Quote

At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books later classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha").


Oh, yes, and the Protestant reformers who kicked out the Apocrypha. Best not to forget them.

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

    
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:27   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:08)
There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

I think RtH gets credit here for calling "no true Scotsman". Out of curiosity, what was the pot up to?

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:28   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:03)
Without information in DNA, Monkeys could really give birth to humans and an E. Coli can divide and instead of two E Coli cells, you have an embryonic cat on one side and a dog on the other.

Then you'd have something.



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
lcd



Posts: 137
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:30   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,13:22)
It's not so obvious to millions of people, including Christians.

So Christians who accept evolution aren't REAL Christians? Is that the statement you're signing on to?

Who gets to pick? You?

As you know, the Vatican has come out in support of evolution. Are Catholics not 'real Christians'?

Michael Behe has conceded common descent. Is he not a 'real Christian'?

   
Quote
I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?


Do you keep kosher?

For other Christians, I offer up only what I read in the Bible.

I don't judge them so I won't say what happens to them.  That is up to God.

As far as Kosher, I am not a full on vegetarian, I eat fish though no shell fish, shrimp, etc., and I'm lactose intolerant.  So no "meat with milk" for me.  So yes, I think I do.

Trust me we've had many "open and intense discussions" at church about following God's Laws.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:31   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,11:21)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,12:34)
Where in your cosmology do religious people who accept evolution fit in? Are they worse than atheists?

Oh, and at some point I would like to hear why you didn't lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.

For these questions:

#1:  Many of them are well meaning but confused.  I'm sure many feel that to be accepted they must conform to some notion of what it means to be sophisticated.

#2:  Using Hitler, I was taught, is wrong to lump him with evolution.  Hitler wasn't an atheist.  He was some kind of Pagan/New Age/Catholic Cult who tried to change religion into his own ideals.  Besides there's that thing that when one starts comparing others to Nazis or Hitler, they automatically lose.

Thank you. Most people of your ilk say that Hitler was an atheist.

So, since you brought them up, can you tell me why Stalin had Darwinists thrown in jail, and what evidence you have for Mao's support of Darwinism?

Do you personally think Christians who believe in Evolution are going to hell?

   
Quote
I stated previously about the amount of money given to do dogmatic Evolutionary Science.  Why don't we try giving ARN or DI 20 years and lots of taxpayer money to come up with something in 20 years?

Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?


There are plenty of private institutions with millions of dollars who are very sympathic to Creationism. The Templeton Institute was offering grants to do ID work for years. And yet, no ID research gets done. No creationist research gets done. The main ID journal in existence has published no issues in close to 3 years. Why no results? Why are no private funding sources stepping up to the plate?

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

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2008,13:34   

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:21)
What would you take as evidence?

Emperical data, facts. Like with all forms of science, so where are they when it's about ID or Creationism?
 
Quote
So what would you people take?  Things such as Dembski's Design Filter can be used, although it may need to be perfected.  Is that a problem?  Why is Evolution allowed to change stripes, "Punctuated Equilibrium", no wait, "Gradualism", oh that don't work, back to "Uniformism"?  It seems as those ID Theories, some of which may be still being built upon, doesn't get the same respect.

Evolution is allowed to "change stripes" because that's the way science works. Science keeps correcting itself, that's the power of science. If something is wrong, it will change.
O and by the way, Dembski's "Design filter" or commonly known as the Explanatory Filter (if that's not the one you mean, correct me) if utterly useless. To save me a lot of typing, read this nice little article from our own Wesley Elsberry: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
 
Quote
Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?

Money can be spend on science. So either start conducting it, or stop moaning. And you sir, are only talking about (bad?) theology, and not science.

  
  291 replies since Feb. 15 2007,16:13 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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