|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: For ToErs Eyes Only | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: We only have this problem because you sent these clowns here 350 years ago. Why don't you do us a favor and take a few back? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6380 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
We only have this problem because you sent these clowns here 350 years ago. Why don't you do us a favor and take a few back? No no no! We sent the convicts to Australia (explains a lot ) but the fundies chose to go America. We're already seeing the malign influence of your fundies trying to cleanse our 'Godless' islands, so I'm afraid we'll have to regretfully decline your request. I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4020 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
We sent the convicts to Australia (explains a lot ) Kinda explains our anti-authoritarian outlook.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
We tried to deal with them once, but you went and got the French involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
I keep finding myself drawn back to this thread. If one were to look around and initiate or join an ongoing debate about evolution, what topics should be presented.
To argue the points about god and ID is, to a large extent, useless. Re: all the points that Nuggin made in the original post and the response posted. Assume we have an audience of people that just do not know must about evolution. I would also assume that the education level ranges from junior high through graduate studies. I come up with two questions. What topics should be initiated?How should we deal with the bible thumpers that keep throwing their garbage into the discussion? As much as I might like, you can't just shoot them or chase them out. Just as must as personal replies, I am looking for some we sites where I can download some material and read up on how this debate might be pursued. BTW: How is the trial going in pensylvania? I just did some google searches and really did not find anything recent or worth reading. I see that as on topic as the trial is an example of dealing with the bible thumpers. Much as they deny, ID is a religious position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
bkelly writes:
My current opinion is that we should allow topics to be initiated by those who have questions, those you describe as our audience. What topics should be initiated? Once questions are asked, we should attempt to answer them as clearly as we can, and in a friendly manner where we can. That's just my opinion. You might have different ideas.
BTW: How is the trial going in pensylvania?
It's always hard to tell until the decision is in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If one were to look around and initiate or join an ongoing debate about evolution, what topics should be presented. One hot topic is the definition of "species." You might look at mine in the forum called "All species are transitional." I totally vanquished Parasomnium; and, believe me, that's not easy to do. "Turning out pigs for creationists makes me blue and blurry."--Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
Thanks nwr. From your response, should I infer the trial has been sent to the jury?
As I say that, it seems a bit preposterious that a jury would be debating this topic. I have no alternatives, the concept just seems weird. I guess part of my problem is that if the jury votes to include the statement, how much precedence will that set?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
From your response, should I infer the trial has been sent to the jury?
That would be reading too much into my comment. As far as I know, evidence is still being presented. I'm not following this very closely, but I am seeing regular reports on the usenet group talk.origins . I think there are some blogs that give a play by play account. You have probably seen the reports on Behe admitting that he would have to consider astrology to be science. As best I can tell, the ID proponents are looking pretty silly. However, cases like this are sometimes decided on narrow technical grounds, so that makes it hard to guess what the final outcome will be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4020 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, BK, The Panda`s Thumb seems to keep a reasonable update
The Panda’s Thumb AbE: And Mick`s link in Links and Information gives you the whole biz if you`re into heavy reading. This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 10-28-2005 10:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
Thanks Nighttrain,
They seem to be off line at the moment, I will try again later. To continue the main topic a bit, here is some possible food for thought. As I peruse some of the threads in this forum, frequently there is information to be found in the questions that are not answered. The ToEers jump in and reply to the hard questions. We seledom leave them unanswered. We sometimes even admit to “That’s a good question and we really don’t have a good answer.” However, far more often than not, the questions are answered with evidence, reason and logic. On the other hand, when faced with difficult questions, the IDers tend to ignore the question and pretend they have earned some credit. What to other ToEers think about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I think the problem, bkelly, is that those who try to defend ID here don't understand statistics, biology, or even ID. In fact, their understanding of these subjects are so bad that they cannot understand that their arguments are bad, or why; they think their arguments are so good that the only reason we evolutionists aren't persuaded by them is that our minds must be closed. I don't think the IDists are intentionally pretending. I think that they really believe that they are killing us with their iron-clad logic. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4020 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Their iron-clad logic doesn`t seem to extend to the fact that 99+% of species are extinct. So either we have the most incompetent designer in history, or one hell of a sadist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
No, it wasn't Kipling or Bill Cosby.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Was it Kipling (or Bill Cosby) who said 'It`s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game'?
Found with a google lookup.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024