Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 46 of 283 (648720)
01-17-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
01-16-2012 9:21 AM


Of course if you want to claim something is true because God says it is true, and it happens to be something for which there is scientific evidence, then worlds clash. But "My interpretation of the Bible, the Word of God, is that this is so" is an impoverished argument against actual evidence.
You put the bolded in quotation marks. Where did I say that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 01-16-2012 9:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Theodoric, posted 01-17-2012 8:35 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-18-2012 9:47 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 283 (648721)
01-17-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
01-17-2012 7:55 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
That was a special report from the alternate universe in marc9000's head. And now back to the real world for the weather.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 48 of 283 (648723)
01-17-2012 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by marc9000
01-17-2012 8:13 PM


It Burns!!
You put the bolded in quotation marks. Where did I say that?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 8:13 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(10)
Message 49 of 283 (648724)
01-17-2012 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
01-17-2012 7:55 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
marc9000 writes:
So you wish that I’d never posted in your thread?
Trixie wasn't saying that at all. She was expressing surprise at how quickly a creationist gave it away that ID is really about religion.
But thank you for that exceptionally clear and detailed post. Although the information you provided comes as no surprise, it's nice to have it presented so thoroughly and clearly in a single message. You see the issue as one of atheism versus religion. You believe the atheists exerted undue influence over a scientific community that a hundred years ago had it right.
But the rest of us, especially those like Jar and me who are not atheists, see it only as an issue of science education. We believe that what the scientific community believes is science should be taught in science class. Only 7% of the people in this country are atheists, and they are held in lower esteem than almost any other group you can name, so while they may be a convenient scapegoat to blame for evolution being an accepted view within science, the scientific community in this country is predominantly Christian.
And I agree with you that Christians will continue to seek judicial remedy, but the judicial community in this country is also predominantly Christian. It might be time to consider the possibility that ID's failures in the halls of science and in the courts has more to do with ID's failure as science than with any of the fears to which you've given voice.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 7:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 50 of 283 (648732)
01-18-2012 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
01-17-2012 7:55 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Marc, we understand exactly why these bills are introduced. They are introduced because creationists want to put their propaganda into science classes as if it were real science. And they have no compunctions about lying to get their way (as seen in the Dover case - and in your post).
quote:
They understand perfectly what it was about. It’s about a double standard. Fragmented, partial hypothesis of how life naturalistically arose from non life is considered science because it’s atheist friendly, while the comparably fragmented, partial scientific challenges to Darwinism called ID is not atheist friendly, so it’s blocked by the courts.
In fact abiogenesis is seen as scientific because it is a valid scientific research program that is making progress. Abiogenesis researchers don't expect their hypotheses to be accepted just because they favour certain philosophical or religious views - and they aren't. If there were a good scientific alternative to abiogenesis it might be relegated to a cranky fringe group - but there isn't.
ID on the other hand is far LESS scientific than abiogenesis. It doesn't have anything like the record of research or success. And it does not lack for scientific opposition - it is up against a massively successful scientific theory with a huge body of work. Even if ID managed to get to the stage where abiogenesis is now (and there's no reason to believe that it can) it would still not be able to supplant evolution because evolution is in a far stronger position.
So in reality there is no double standard. ID just doesn't measure up.
The real reasons for the bills are not found in the falsehoods - but in the reasons why such obvious falsehoods are said and believed. The conflict is entirely about a religious group seeking to impose it's will on the nation, in defiance of both the Constitution and the truth. It's already close enough to what you claim about evolution and it's acceptance to justify at least the suspicion that much of what you say is projection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(12)
Message 51 of 283 (648739)
01-18-2012 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
01-17-2012 7:55 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
So you wish that I’d never posted in your thread? You’d rather have had a 20, or 30, or 40 post love fest with like minded people?
Nope, not what I said or implied at all.
they just want to mock and ridicule, and call any non-atheist a flat earther. Are you different? We’ll soon find out.
You'll find out sooner than you expect. I'm a Roman Catholic which I do believe counts as Christian (contrary to what some fundamentalists would have you believe).
I’m here to help answer the question you posed in the opening post, to explain to you why these types of ID bills keep coming up, and why, as I said, you need to get used to it.
But you haven't answered the question, really, have you? I'll try to be clearer. Religion cannot be allowed in science class because it breaches the Establisment clause, separation of church and state. That is a fact. Dover happened because a misinformed bunch of religious zealots tried introduce religion into science class under the guise of "non-religious" ID. Unfortunately for them this was shown to be exactly what it was, religion deliberately and dishonestly disguised as science to circumvent the Establishent clause.
Give that the religious foundations and agenda of ID are exposed for all to see and given that an attempt at showing it was science was laughable, why are the ID crowd persisting? I think that unintentionally your diatribe may have answered that question. There is a complete lack of any understanding of why religion has no place in a science class. Even when trying to defend ID as valid science you just couldn't stop yourself from introducing religion with references to atheists. You even stated
I personally, have never claimed that ID has nothing to do with religion. It has something to do with religion, to the same extent that evolution has something to do with atheism. It is claimed that evolution can be studied separate from atheism. Equally, ID can be studied separate from religion.
And there in lies the problem. Evolution says nothing about atheism, it's neutral. The existence of evolution in combination with all the other sciences like geology, palaeontology etc., is evidence against the literal biblical account of the 7 days of creation, a young earth and all life being created exactly as it appears now. Your choice of words is illuminating, using "claimed" for evolution and "can" for ID. The problem is that evolution has been studied separate from atheism whereas ID hasn't been studied FULLSTOP! Oh, it's been talked about, but where's the actual scientific work? And in your reply you've shown that even when just talking about ID it can't be separated from religion.
Now, given that you have stated that ID does have something to do with religion, the question is more along the lines of why do the proposers of these bills continue to expect ID to be given special treatment and be allowed to breach the Establishment clause? There are some ill-informed individuals who hold that ID has nothing to do with religion, but they are not the ones trying to shoe-horn it into science class.
The specifics of ID, as promoted by its leading proponents, aren’t religious. Mathematical improbability isn’t religious. Evidence of purpose v non-purpose, not religious. Defining and determining what testability actually is - not religious. Studying a greater range of biological possibilities is not religious. Such as predictions of certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to local optima and extinction. [Dembski] New paths of exploration that that go completely unexplored by atheists.
All of the above are occurring in people's brains, not at the lab bench. No amount of mental masturbation can equate to hard, raw data. Where is this data? Show me it, show me the numbers! The word "studying" above doesn't belong in there. Replace it by "hypothesising" and you're closer to the truth.
The very place to decide if something is constitutional is the law courts. It's been ruled that religion in science class is unconstitutional. So why are some people still trying to achieve something which is unconstitutional? Does the Constitution mean so little to them?
Others like the Catholic church leadership, make compromises to try to avoid costly legal battles with the scientific community.
Costly legal battles? The Catholic church is free to teach whatever the hell it wants. It's a religious body and so is expected to teach religion. Are you suggesting that the Catholic church thought it would be sued if it taught creationism, so accepted evolution? Isn't it more likely that they looked at the evidence and made their decision? Afterall, that's what they themselves state about their decision to accept evolution.
Most of them are phonies, some are genuine, with little understanding of Christianity.
I wonder which category I fit into. I also wonder how anyone can
....bend and shape their religion to a secondary realm, far behind the leader, which is atheism.
How on earth do you bend your religion into a denial of religion?
The rest of your post is nothing more than an attack on atheists and atheism which you seem to equate with science, or at least an acceptance of evolution. Maybe that's the only answer there is to my question. Until certain people realise that the two terms are not synonymous they will continue to be deluded that the battle is between religion and atheism, when in fact it's a battle between science and pseudoscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 7:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:28 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 283 (648752)
01-18-2012 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by marc9000
01-17-2012 8:13 PM


Hi Marc,
The quotation marks were used to delimit an entire sentence summarizing the creationist position for use as a noun. Apologies if there was any confusion.
We understand that creationists will continue to seek political remedies for what they perceive as improper atheistic influence in science, but the same lack of evidence that is so apparent to scientists is just as apparent in court. We're fortunate to have the establishment clause in this country, but I think it possible that political efforts promoting creationism would be equally unsuccessful without it just on the basis that science classes should teach what scientists think is science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 8:13 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:31 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 283 (648763)
01-18-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
01-17-2012 7:55 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
New paths of exploration that that go completely unexplored by atheists.
The paths you described really aren't explored in any substantial way by anyone. Writing a few popular books and a summary paper or two is not exploration.
One reason that ID isn't considered science is that essentially no scientists are following up on any of ID's implications. When is the Discovery Institute going to get around to doing just that? If they were able to do so, they'd be able to address at least that part of the issue.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2012 4:10 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 54 of 283 (648805)
01-18-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
01-18-2012 10:42 AM


been there before
Hi NoNukes
The paths you described really aren't explored in any substantial way by anyone. Writing a few popular books and a summary paper or two is not exploration.
One reason that ID isn't considered science is that essentially no scientists are following up on any of ID's implications. When is the Discovery Institute going to get around to doing just that? If they were able to do so, they'd be able to address at least that part of the issue.
I've been down this path with marc9000 before. See abiogenesis in general and Message 249 in particular:
quote:
marc9000 started this thread (see Message 1) with a number of assertions, and added some in following posts, these included:
  1. abiogenesis does not qualify as science, at least not compared to other sciences and the modern usage of the term science,
  2. ID qualifies as science just as much as abiogenesis does, but
  3. the definition of science has been changed to keep ID out, and
  4. this was done after abiogenesis was accepted as science.
  5. ID can't get a foot in the door because of lack of funding and academic support.

It is interesting to note that all but claim 1 were refuted, and marc9000 never validated claim 1.
It is further interesting to note that:
quote:
Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.
Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.
Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.
There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):
quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?
Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.
Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.
Opportunities missed to actually have some science funded.
As far as I am concerned, ID is a religious philosophy, and that philosophy and religion do not belong in science class.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 01-18-2012 10:42 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 55 of 283 (648838)
01-18-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
01-17-2012 9:59 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Trixie wasn't saying that at all. She was expressing surprise at how quickly a creationist gave it away that ID is really about religion.
Why is it that if ONE person refers to religious people’s involvement in ID, then all of ID is about religion, yet if an evolutionary leader/biologist like Dawkins says evolution is about atheism, it’s only one person’s opinion? Dawkins never gives anything away, does he?
But thank you for that exceptionally clear and detailed post.
It does tend to liven up an otherwise boring thread when everyone agrees on everything, doesn't it? Why do you suppose we get messages like 40, 45, 47, 48, and 54? Evolution is in the drivers seat in the courts, why the anger?
Although the information you provided comes as no surprise, it's nice to have it presented so thoroughly and clearly in a single message. You see the issue as one of atheism versus religion. You believe the atheists exerted undue influence over a scientific community that a hundred years ago had it right.
I never intended to imply that the scientific community had it perfectly right a hundred years ago, but I suppose I did, so I’ll clarify. I actually feel that change over time, changes within kinds etc. did and does have a place in science. The scales have tipped from one extreme to the other — too much religion 100 years ago, too much atheism today.
But the rest of us, especially those like Jar and me who are not atheists, see it only as an issue of science education.
But what about the atheists who see it as an issue of atheism versus religion? The Noble prize winners who say science has a responsibility to weaken religion? That doesn’t bother you at all? Would they say that Christ wasn’t much of a Christian? I believe Jar is the one who in an earlier thread told me that Christ wasn’t much of a Christian. I believe the purpose of this type of statement to be twofold, 1 Just about any Christian, myself included, is simply going to walk away from it, nonsense like this isn’t worth any actual Christians time. And 2 Atheists are going to roll on the floor laughing at this method of driving Christians off of message boards.
Have you ever heard of Bradley Monton? He claims to be an atheist, and wrote a book on why ID should be in science classes. Here is the book at amazon, with a few brief reviews if you care to check it out. Now we’ll see if I get a barrage of replies to this message, calling Monton a phony. Then we can refer to some of Jar’s statements about Christianity, and further explore double standards.
We believe that what the scientific community believes is science should be taught in science class. Only 7% of the people in this country are atheists, and they are held in lower esteem than almost any other group you can name, so while they may be a convenient scapegoat to blame for evolution being an accepted view within science, the scientific community in this country is predominantly Christian.
quote:
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a non-profit organization enacted and sanctioned by the United States federal government. According to a 1998 report in the journal Nature, a recent survey found that 93% of NAS members are either atheists or agnostics. The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God.[1]
National Academy of Sciences - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
If that link is too biased for you, Steven Jay Gould’s website says the same thing.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
And I agree with you that Christians will continue to seek judicial remedy, but the judicial community in this country is also predominantly Christian. It might be time to consider the possibility that ID's failures in the halls of science and in the courts has more to do with ID's failure as science than with any of the fears to which you've given voice.
In addition to the 93% figure above, I believe there are other figures that show that members of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups including college professors vote for Democrats about 90% of the time. I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the scientific community is made up of humans like all the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important social decisions without going through the political process like anyone else has to. And that an often bent court system that’s evolved to something far beyond the founders wildest nightmares isn’t getting it done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 01-17-2012 9:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2012 9:56 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 01-18-2012 10:08 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 01-19-2012 1:59 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2012 2:14 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2012 4:10 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 66 by Trixie, posted 01-19-2012 4:39 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-19-2012 5:11 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2012 10:56 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 56 of 283 (648840)
01-18-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Trixie
01-18-2012 6:45 AM


Re: That didn't take long!
You'll find out sooner than you expect.
It couldn’t have come sooner than one post, and I found out, thank you very much. You’re as frantic and closed minded as anyone else here.
marc9000 writes:
The specifics of ID, as promoted by its leading proponents, aren’t religious. Mathematical improbability isn’t religious. Evidence of purpose v non-purpose, not religious. Defining and determining what testability actually is - not religious. Studying a greater range of biological possibilities is not religious. Such as predictions of certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to local optima and extinction. [Dembski] New paths of exploration that that go completely unexplored by atheists.
All of the above are occurring in people's brains, not at the lab bench. No amount of mental masturbation can equate to hard, raw data. Where is this data? Show me it, show me the numbers!
It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science.
The very place to decide if something is constitutional is the law courts. It's been ruled that religion in science class is unconstitutional. So why are some people still trying to achieve something which is unconstitutional? Does the Constitution mean so little to them?
The farce of the Dover trial had Michael Behe testifying about the data you require. He didn’t testify, he was grilled, by the best lawyers money can buy. The framers never intended for the courts to become what they are today. Separation of church and state isn’t in the establishment clause, by the way.
Costly legal battles? The Catholic church is free to teach whatever the hell it wants. It's a religious body and so is expected to teach religion. Are you suggesting that the Catholic church thought it would be sued if it taught creationism, so accepted evolution? Isn't it more likely that they looked at the evidence and made their decision? Afterall, that's what they themselves state about their decision to accept evolution.
On December 29, 1968, 2600 scientists, including four Nobel laureates, published a petition in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Catholic magazine ‘Commonweal’ urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates. Their problem? — the Pope’s stance on birth control. The scientific community can’t make as much money on abortions and birth control if the Pope is getting in its way. There are countless other examples, embryonic stem cell research is just one more, of where religion and morals get in the way of what the scientific community wants to do. The Catholic church had, and still has, good reason to fear the atheist scientific community.
How on earth do you bend your religion into a denial of religion?
You claim that atheists are always right, first and foremost. If they say Genesis is false, you strike it out, and only believe the rest of the Bible. If they say natural laws make the parting of the Red Sea impossible, you strike out Exodus as well. If they say there was no original sin, then you relax and say that Christ’s work wasn’t really all that important. It goes on and on until soon, you start calling Christians Biblists, and that God really isn’t omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Pretty soon there’s nothing left. But you keep calling yourself a Christian, and atheists laugh at you, but they love you. You got a whole lotta lil green dots for this post. Congratulations!
The rest of your post is nothing more than an attack on atheists and atheism which you seem to equate with science, or at least an acceptance of evolution. Maybe that's the only answer there is to my question. Until certain people realise that the two terms are not synonymous they will continue to be deluded that the battle is between religion and atheism, when in fact it's a battle between science and pseudoscience.
You really seem to like and respect evolution, how are you with its history? Have you ever heard of Thomas Huxley, Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernst Mayr? These people developed modern evolutionary thought, it was their extension of Darwin’s work into a complete atheist worldview that has led us to leading evolutionists who wrote the following books;
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008
This is only a partial list from the past decade, but are any of these prominently referred to at your church?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Trixie, posted 01-18-2012 6:45 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2012 9:50 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-18-2012 9:58 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 57 of 283 (648841)
01-18-2012 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
01-18-2012 9:47 AM


Hi Marc,
The quotation marks were used to delimit an entire sentence summarizing the creationist position for use as a noun. Apologies if there was any confusion.
I understand, but I’m just saying that it’s not completely fair. You immediately group all ID proponents in with religious fanatics, yet cry foul when I group atheists and theistic evolutionists together in the same way. The divisions are comparable. Conflicts involve two parties. You’re trying to separate yourself from atheists, to make it a three position conflict. The religious, atheists, and your perfect neutral position. You, Jar, and Trixie simply have too much in common with atheists to be able to do that. To be fair, you need to extend the same courtesy to ID proponents that you help yourselves to. If you believe that ID is nothing but religion, you simply don’t know enough about it. Good books have been written about it by Behe and Dembski. If you dismiss it because it originated and was promoted by religious people, then you have a double standard, because common-descent evolution was originated and promoted by atheist people. Actual history shows that claims that Darwin was a devout Christian is BS.
We understand that creationists will continue to seek political remedies for what they perceive as improper atheistic influence in science, but the same lack of evidence that is so apparent to scientists is just as apparent in court.
But it’s not always apparent in the court of public opinion, and that’s a large part of the Bill introduction process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-18-2012 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 01-18-2012 10:32 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 01-19-2012 2:33 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 58 of 283 (648844)
01-18-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:28 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science.
That was ... bizarre.
The farce of the Dover trial had Michael Behe testifying about the data you require. He didn’t testify, he was grilled, by the best lawyers money can buy.
He did, in fact testify. Testifying in answer to questions asked by lawyers is in fact the normal way of testifying in a court of law. I'm not sure that there's actually any other way to do so.
On December 29, 1968, 2600 scientists, including four Nobel laureates, published a petition in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Catholic magazine ‘Commonweal’ urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates. Their problem? — the Pope’s stance on birth control. The scientific community can’t make as much money on abortions and birth control if the Pope is getting in its way.
By what magical process does "the scientific community" "make money on abortions and birth control"?
You really seem to like and respect evolution, how are you with its history? Have you ever heard of Thomas Huxley, Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernst Mayr? These people developed modern evolutionary thought, it was their extension of Darwin’s work into a complete atheist worldview that has led us to leading evolutionists who wrote the following books;
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008
The novelist Aldous Huxley "developed modern evolutionary thought"? The Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky developed "a complete atheist world view"? The political journalist Christopher Hitchens was a "leading evolutionist"?
Why do you talk about things you don't know anything about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:28 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2012 8:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 283 (648847)
01-18-2012 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Why is it that if ONE person refers to religious people’s involvement in ID, then all of ID is about religion, yet if an evolutionary leader/biologist like Dawkins says evolution is about atheism, it’s only one person’s opinion? Dawkins never gives anything away, does he?
Well, he certainly never said that, that's why you had to make it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 283 (648848)
01-18-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:28 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Of course Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew.
And yes, the difference is between two groups, some Atheists and Theists that support reality, honesty and what the evidence shows, and Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design that support fantasy, misrepresentation and what they can make up.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024