Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The state of ID/YECism here at EvC
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 62 (272055)
12-23-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
12-23-2005 1:43 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
I think some ID scientists have published in journals concerning adaptive mutations being governed by quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics.
How does anyone track causes of mutation to the atomic level?
In any case, I thought that one of the points of ID was that most mutations resulted in horrific flaws such that mutation cannot account for diversity of species? Not to mention that some characteristics are so complex that mutation couldn't account for them anyway?
I suspect, just as in evolutionism, newer "leaders" will emerge based on their work
Why am I getting this image of a deck of scientists and creos simply pulling from the top and when they don't work to win the game, tossing them away and redrawing from the deck?
Is there no sense that Behe and Dembski's work were worthy now that they've been shown to be incapable of surviving a court battle to get religion in the classroom? If their science was as good as everyone was claiming, why isn't their work being continued just the same and these guys remain the leaders?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 2:02 PM Silent H has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 62 (272058)
12-23-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Silent H
12-23-2005 1:59 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
I think their work is fine. I am just not as familiar with them, and winning or losing in a court-room means nada to me. I think the modern interpretation of separation of Church and State is wholly at odds with a free soceity and with the intent and words of the Constitution, but I am not surprised that evolutionists use the courts to try to force their views on the public, and do so all the while falsely accusing their critics of doing the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2005 1:59 PM Silent H has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 62 (272061)
12-23-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
12-23-2005 1:49 PM


Re: percy idiot-speak
Why is this a problem for creos and IDers?
The main problem is that evolution is not based on actual facts and data, and so it is harder to get evos to drop their beliefs since they are more asserting prejudicial views than actual observed facts. Basically, evolution is a method for viewing the data, and as such defines what is an acceptable view of the data. If you look at the data without the evo assumption, a different picture emerges, but evos insist that you must first accept the conclusion prior to viewing the data. They've basically inverted the concept of empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2005 1:49 PM Silent H has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 62 (272062)
12-23-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
12-23-2005 1:51 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
It's you evos using the courts to force your views on everyone else, not IDers. Frankly, when you've devolved into using courts to thwart scientific opinion, you can clearly see that evolutionism is not science but is primarily an ideological movement using scientific data.
If it was just science, you guys would not resort to courts to silence your critics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2005 1:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2005 2:24 PM randman has replied
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 12-23-2005 2:26 PM randman has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 50 of 62 (272066)
12-23-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
12-23-2005 1:09 PM


Debate position information
...considering you have no reason to refer to me as a YECer.
I grant you that there may be no real reason for me to think that, but YEC was my image of you also.
What we need is another field on the profile page. Call it something like "Debate Position". There members can declare themselve to be "Flaming liberal YEC" or "Neo-con Raelian" or "Vegan masochist Republican theistic evolutionist" or whatever.
This information could be displayed under the registered date information at the left side of the message postings.
But I guess this should go in the "Feature Suggestions" topic.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:09 PM randman has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 51 of 62 (272069)
12-23-2005 2:21 PM


Topic drift alert!
The theme of this topic may well be poorly defined, especially as far as what the creationist side input should be.
That said, let's keep the debate of specific aspects of evolution/creation/ID at the topics devoted to the specific themes.
That said (part 2), maybe this topic needs to be closed.
Adminnemooseus
Edit: Fixed a spelling error and a typo.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2005 03:17 PM

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 52 of 62 (272070)
12-23-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
12-23-2005 1:06 PM


Re: some back-up
1.Which nuggin told you Richards isn't even talking about its impact on the ToE, but on embryology
2. because that whole thing was utter nonsense, and you are making a mountian out of a molehill
3. which is utter nonsense and you still are twisting what people say
4. which you have never been able to back up, jus made wild claims
by the by i've read enough to know that, most people claiming the negitive never bothered to read what science produces, just skimed parts they can use to convince people of thier views
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-23-2005 02:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:06 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 2:52 PM ReverendDG has not replied

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


Message 53 of 62 (272072)
12-23-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
12-23-2005 2:08 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
You're getting off topic here.
However I never mentioned the courts. Political action can and does take place outside the courts
Howver it is utterly false to say that evolutionists have used the courts to force evolution on anyone. THe first relevant trial was part of a campaign to overthrow a rule forbidding the teaching of evolution. Later cort cases have been about the teaching of YEC as science and now ID as science - as well as attempts to hamper the teaching of evolution.
The claim that the courts are used to silence critics is a blatant falsehood. And absolutely typical of the smear tactics employed by ID supporters. f

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 2:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 2:54 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 54 of 62 (272075)
12-23-2005 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
12-23-2005 2:08 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
that evolutionism is not science but is primarily an ideological movement using scientific data.
I disagree but you make a very strong point. Evolutionism uses scientific data. ID and YEC does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 2:08 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 62 (272087)
12-23-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ReverendDG
12-23-2005 2:23 PM


Re: some back-up
Which nuggin told you Richards isn't even talking about its impact on the ToE, but on embryology
Which just shows you how ignorant you guys are, and moreover, on other threads, nuggins has conceded embryological development is used to argue for evolution. In fact, all arguments for evolution touch on some other related field such as paleontology, genetics, etc,...To actually argue that because an argument for evolution also touches on another subject means the evo argument "isn't event talking about its impact on the ToE" just shows how deeply ignorant and twisted some evo minds are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ReverendDG, posted 12-23-2005 2:23 PM ReverendDG has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 62 (272088)
12-23-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
12-23-2005 2:24 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
Howver it is utterly false to say that evolutionists have used the courts to force evolution on anyone.
Ever hear of the Scopes-Monkey trial?
Evolutionists used the courts first to allow for equal time to present evolution, and now years later, they argue the exact opposite. Evolution has always been steeped in propaganda and remains so to this day, which is why evos have to resort to courts to try to silence their critics and force their views on people.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 02:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2005 2:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2005 3:03 PM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 62 (272089)
12-23-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
12-23-2005 1:39 PM


Re: more buffonery from percy
randman writes:
percy writes:
All I have to go on so far is your claim that the real world is consistent with the Biblical accounts of creation.
Uh wrong. I have stated my position previously to you that as far as I am concerned the biblical account is consistent with YEC, ID, and evolution because the biblical account is not specific enough to discount any of these models on it's own...
Adminnemooseus is correct that we're drifting off-topic, so I'll just say that what you say appears contradictory to me, and certainly in contradiction to what the bright lights of ID believe, so if you're interested in resolving these apparent contradictions please start a new thread.
You are merely slandering me, and imo, for no good reason.
Yes, we know, everyone here is always slandering you for no good reason.
You could only hold mistaking you for a YEC to be slander if you considered the YEC position to be a seriously flawed view. But this contradicts what you said just above, that the Biblical account is consistent with the YEC view, and therefore perfectly respectable. If you don't want to be clear about your views then that's your choice, but in that case don't blame others for thinking the contradictions in your viewpoint stem from confusion.
Oh, and regarding slander, who was it that typed the subtitle for this subtread? By the way, buffoon has two o's.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:39 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 3:32 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 58 of 62 (272091)
12-23-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
12-23-2005 2:54 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
Yes, I;ve heard of the Scopes trial. It was held because a US state had banned the teaching of evolution in science classes. But evolution wasn't forced on anyone - it was simply that science teachers were allowed to teach science rather than suffer a religiously motivated ban.
The pother cases you refer to are similar in that they are also attempts to manipulate the curriculum to the detriment of teaching science, motivated by religious belief.
The clear fact is that evolution was established science BEFORE the Scopes trial. Neither "Creation Science" nor ID have achieved that. And that is a crucial difference.n

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 2:54 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-23-2005 3:06 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 59 of 62 (272092)
12-23-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
12-23-2005 3:03 PM


Re: ID preceded those guys
Also remember that the outcome of that particular trial was that Evolution lost.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2005 3:03 PM PaulK has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 60 of 62 (272105)
12-23-2005 3:31 PM


The ugly reality of this topic... - Closing topic
I think the reality of this topics nature is that it is suitable for evolutionist side input only. There is not much (on-topic) room for creationist/IDist input.
There is (IMO) an element of ID in all creationist positions, ranging all the way from YEC to theistic evolutionist. But, as typified by the recent Dover case, ID is primarily part of a theistic evolutionist position.
I suggest that someone propose a "Young Earth vs. Old Earth Intelligent Design" topic.
Closing this topic down.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-23-2005 3:35 PM Adminnemooseus 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