Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Question for IDers

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... Talk about crocodile tears! If the NCSE had even a FRACTION of the funding available to anti-evolutionist propaganda mills they would probably all become
    Message 1 of 46 , Dec 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On 30 Nov 2008 at 21:53, tykemorris wrote:

      > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Ralphkru"
      > <ralphkru@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > [Ralph] Let us consider, for the sake of argument, that there may
      > be
      > > some sort of intelligence, or even an intelligent designer, at
      > work
      > > within biological entities. If such a thing does exist, then it
      > is
      > > part and parcel of natural biology and, of course, it would have
      > an
      > > effect on evolutionary theory. The Darwinian theory would have to
      > be > re-worked to include this element. Much work would need to be
      > done to > answer a number of questions about the nature and scope of
      > this > intelligence. It would be an exciting time to be a
      > biologist.
      >
      > Tyke: I completely agree with all of this (except I would say
      > Darwinism is replaced, not reworked) and I like your description of
      > what ID science is about. It is exciting when dogmatic paradigms are
      > exposed as failed and revolutionary new ideas and findings arise.
      >
      > Ralph: >> However, at the end of it all, we would still have
      > evolution as a > naturally occurring event. The existence of an
      > intelligence, or even > an intelligent designer, would not supplant
      > evolution; it would be > subsumed into general evolutionary
      > theory.
      >
      > Tyke: Completely agree.
      >
      > Ralph: >> So, my question is: what is the payback for IDers?
      > Certainly, they could say "we told you so", but this seems a goal
      > not
      > really commensurate with the effort being expended. Are they
      > motivated by a pure and unsullied love of truth? If so, huzzah, but
      > why make the scientific acceptance of their idea more difficult by
      > not using established scientific methods to make their point? I'm
      > just curious.
      >
      > Tyke: We use established mehodology as funding allows, but there is
      > going to need to be a reversal of some heavy PR moves made against us
      > by well-funded organizations such as the anti-science NCSE. Plus

      Talk about crocodile tears! If the NCSE had even a FRACTION of the
      funding available to anti-evolutionist propaganda mills they would
      probably all become believers in the power of prayer!

      > until you get in the door in academia, it is always an uphill battle
      > to get funding. So far, the effort being expended has been exceeded
      > by an entrenched minority fighting hard to make people not "like" us
      > very much. You might ask what motivates them to stifle any branch of
      > science. Hey, if the Darwinists are right they'd have nothing to
      > fear.

      Youu do a very good job of making people "not like you" without any
      help from mainstream science. You do it by engaging in mendacity and
      by uttering LIES, clearly DESIGNED to deceive the ignorant for
      political advantage.

      >
      > If you are insinuating that some Creationists promote ID or random
      > accident theory in an attempt to spread their religion, I would say It
      > that does happen, but those people soon expose their true agenda and
      > are not indicative of mainstream ID. True ID is not exactly palatable
      > to the religious set, although it proves intelligent guidance.

      Uh, this is somewhat mendacious, since the whole ID argument was
      basically created in order to attempt an end run around the US
      constitution's prohibition of an established religious teaching. Any
      other construction put upon the history of the "movement" is clearly
      mendacious and DESIGNED to cover up the underlying intent.

      >
      > I can only speak for myself. Personally, I just can not accept
      > believing in something without reason to believe it, and I want to
      > know the truth about what caused me to exist. Why I feel the need to

      Then consider the ORIGINAL doctrine of creationism--the one still
      taught in orthodox Christianity. It teaches that GOD creates a new
      soul for each sentient being, according to its nature.

      > delve into this I probably can't put into words, but I can think of no
      > more intriguing exploration of scientific investigation than what
      > caused us to be. Also, as a lover of science, I hate the fact that the
      > Materialists have highjacked science and turned it into something it
      > was never meant to be, by presuming a pre-determined answer and
      > refusing to bend when the evidence refutes their beliefs.

      When you actually have evidence of special miracles punctuating the
      natural history of biological life, you may find scientists less
      disdainful. But when all you offer is essentially an elaborate
      argurment from personal incredulity, coupled with a lot of mendacious
      attacks on straight-up science, they tend to get testy. And whining
      about that is not helping your case.

      > I would ask your question of those on this board who advocate teaching
      > schoolkids misinformation that they KNOW isn't true. I would ask why
      > they say the evidence shows one thing, but they believe another. I
      > would ask why anyone would NOT want to know what caused them to exist.

      What I don't want is your fallacious and mendacious "evidence" to be
      presented as FACT. Maybe it's because my religion teaches me that
      false witness is a SIN...


      --

      Dave Oldridge
      ICQ 454777283
      VA7CZ
    • tinroad66
      ... Tin: Not in the case of poker Tyke. In the case of poker, you have it EXACTLY assbackwards. How do you manage to get so much so wrong ? At least you have
      Message 46 of 46 , Dec 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > > Tyke: Oops. Isn't it RANDOM CREATION first and THEN selection?

        Tin: Not in the case of poker Tyke.


        In the case of poker, you have it EXACTLY assbackwards.



        How do you manage to get so much so wrong ?



        At least you have *a* talent. <giggle>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.