WIP Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 And I don't see a followup on your creationist source who is trying to explain protein functional redundancy with his theory of separately created animals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) One of you mentioned that ID is the same as Creationism....I don't think so. The two agree on one premise: God is involved in the creation. Some ID advocates will even balk at calling the "Designer", God....although they refer to him as a "transcendental being". I don't know about you, but I do translate something "transcendental" as something "supernatural." ID doesn't necessarily follow the Biblical version of Creation. If you insist that ID is supportive of Creationism....or a an off-shoot of Creationism....then that means you are saying, Darwin must've believed (and actually at some point, capitulated) that there is a possibility Biblical Creation is true! And Gosthack (who claims to be Agnostic), confirmed what WIP had already admitted: ID is "faith-based".............ID=religious interpretations....and I say again, that's the real reason why all the resistance to this theory. It's not about the quest for truth. It's in defense of another faith. In fact Gosthack already admitted to the possibility of ID....and to repeat his own conclusion - there are overwhelming evidence to support ID. That's why I wonder about those who claim to be Agnostics....and yet show very Atheistic-like characteristics. If one is truly Agnostics....they'd be more likely to stay at least neutral, if they already know - and admitted - that there are overwhelming evidence supporting ID! One could see that there's a confusion in that individual's way of thinking....if he can't even decide exactly where he stands! Edited May 28, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) I marvel at how some of you really put your faith in science-fiction writers just because some sceince fiction materials became reality - which of course couldn't be so hard for scientists to figure out since they know what's being worked on...and what current experiments show promise. Scientists have the inside information that ordinary people like us don't have. Usually when they come out publicly, the conclusion is almost always already a done deal. These scientists-turned science-fiction authors of course have contacts in that field. Sure one of them knew about sattelites and told them what to do ....but the idea didn't just spring in his mind out of nothing! The idea was an "off-shoot" by knowledge already established...was inspired by something that already exists. If Point A is established....how much more does it take to connect to Point B...then on to Point C? Dog OnPorch says:You can thank Clarke for cable/satellite TV as it was he who figured out Geo-stationary orbits. His writings are more science fact than science fiction as a good number of his predictions have come true. Predictions??? Heck, Jeanne Dixon predicted some things that came true! I bet if she's alive you'd be wanting to hear her side of the story! Btw, out of curiousity...what other "predictions" by Clarke came true?? WIP says:Arthur C. Clarke once said that a sufficiently advanced civilization would appear to be godlike to us. One catch though -- the advanced alien creators of universes would be deistic gods, since they would not be able to enter the new universes that they seeded, and instead would be permanently cut off from interacting or learing about their new creations. Any intelligent creatures that evolved in the new universes would be left wondering about the hiddeness of God. and the famous, SO! So then you look up to these science-fiction-writers scientists like some god-like beings...accepting their musings...their conjectures....their assumptions....their extrapolations ....and I must now also add, "predictions", about extraterrestial life....as facts! The way you both postured about and ridiculed those who believe in the Bible....yet here you are accepting science-fiction writer's fantasies about extraterrestials as unquestionable facts! Don't you see how ridiculously absurd you sound? Who next? Mr Spock? ...And yet you firmly close your mind to the Bible, when it's been authenticated by some scientists as well and the Resurrection is supported by evidence. That some Atheist who went on a investigative mission to debunk it came out convinced...and converted. See thread REJOICE ON THIS DAY. Yet, you don't even afford it the slimmest benefit of the doubt....you just dismiss it outright. As I've said earlier, no one sheds off their faith so easily without overwhelming evidence....overwhelming enough to suddenly do a 180 degree course of action...life-altering action! You'd think that at least they'd settle for Agnoticism. But oh no. The turn-around is quite striking! From Atheist to a believer of God. From one extreme end to the other! Edited May 28, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Oh, you really are the energizer bunny, aren't you? If you can find a delicate nuance of difference between ID and biblical creationism, then why do you have such a struggle percieving the chasm separating theology and science? It's like recognizing the difference between mac and empire apples, but finding alligators and linoleum indistinguishable from one another. THAT's amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Burning the witches: November 4th, 1585, Baden Germany. Complete leaps of faith were in 1585 and are still today in short supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Btw, out of curiousity...what other "predictions" by Clarke came true?? You can read over all of Clarke's predictions in his book Profiles of the Future. Clarke had degrees in mathematics and physics. Asimov was a full medical doctor as well as a biochemist. They also wrote books. But, you are much, much smarter than those two. I can tell by they way you describe how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Complete leaps of faith were in 1585 and are still today in short supply. You'll burn witches again. It's your nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 You'll burn witches again. It's your nature. Conversion is like the creation of a "second nature". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Conversion is like the creation of a "second nature". Still here? Witches need burnin'. Nobody's burnin' them. While you're at it, there are probably some .(I love the irony in that youtube clip...enjoy.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Still here? Witches need burnin'. Nobody's burnin' them. Witches were only kind of polytheists; Muslims nowadays go after them as "infidels". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Witches were only kind of polytheists; Muslims nowadays go after them as "infidels". My point being...witches = innocent victim. I do like they way your ilk tried to ban Fahrenheit 451...a book about book banning/burning. What's your god's excuse? PS...try English. Most of us speak it here. (wishful thinking, Mr OnPorch... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 One of you mentioned that ID is the same as Creationism....I don't think so.The two agree on one premise: God is involved in the creation. Some ID advocates will even balk at calling the "Designer", God....although they refer to him as a "transcendental being". I don't know about you, but I do translate something "transcendental" as something "supernatural." Your being dishonest(very unchristian) or blind...ID came from a religious textbook, first called Creation Biology Textbook Supplements, then Biology and Creation,Biology and Origins followed by Of Pandas and People...a court case Edwards v. Aguillard ruled it was creationism which could not be taught in schools...then the book was re-edited and the words creation/creator/creationism were edited out and replaced with ID...the courts saw through this in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and ruled it was creationism... a dog is a dog and always will be a dog, even if you call it a cat it will still be a dog... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 One of you mentioned that ID is the same as Creationism....I don't think so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and...oponentsists.22 I expect that an honest and moral person would immediately admit that ID was in fact Creationism, but that after Edwards v. Aguillard, the Creationist camp was forced to, um, put a paper bag over God's head in the hope that Federal Courts would be fooled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 My point being...witches = innocent victim. There is no such thing as innocent victim for polytheists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 There is no such thing as innocent victim for polytheists. So every witch was guilty. This is why your world view can never be mine. The holocaust that would follow the planet submiting to your twisted fairy-tale would be akin to the Muslims controlling eveything. Death to the unbelievers. What a murderous stupid belief system you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 So every witch was guilty. This is why your world view can never be mine. The holocaust that would follow the planet submiting to your twisted fairy-tale would be akin to the Muslims controlling eveything. Death to the unbelievers. What a murderous stupid belief system you have. Chronos, the polytheist Greek god who ate his own children, was every much inspired by the Phoenician Baal cult which is where holocaust comes from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Your religion is the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Your religion is the problem. Relax! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Relax! As soon as you and your dark-age kind stop the move to replace the scientific method with episodes of Davy and Goliath. Until then, expect resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 As soon as you and your dark-age kind stop the move to replace the scientific method with episodes of Davy and Goliath. Until then, expect resistance. Since Paul Feyerabend, dark-age comprises the belief that there is such a thing as a scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Since Paul Feyerabend, dark-age comprises the belief that there is such a thing as a scientific method.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend Philosophers are not scientists even if said philosopher thinks so. Next up from benny: the Moon Landings...real or a collective dream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Philosophers are not scientists Scientists only follow the rules of their game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Scientists only follow the rules of their game. While Dr benny would prescribe leeches to cure arthritis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 While Dr benny would prescribe leeches to cure arthritis. Try to cure death! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Try to cure death! Plant a garden over the body...voila. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.