RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

cow451 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 2:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
See, it's things like this that make realize that evolutionists either don't know what they are talking about, or just make things up and believe them.

The 'warning labels' as you call them were a sticker put on biology text books by the Alabama State Board of Education. The final form read as follows:


My mistake. I was 75% sure it was Kansas, but I just decided to go with it because it was late. It doesn't diminish the point.



Georgia tried the sticker thing briefly, but teachers raised an appropriate stink and the state backed down. The main argument was that this type of sticker was something idiotic that a state like Alabama would do.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 3:25:03 PM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

See, it's things like this that make realize that evolutionists either don't know what they are talking about, or just make things up and believe them.

The 'warning labels' as you call them were a sticker put on biology text books by the Alabama State Board of Education. The final form read as follows:

You only corrected him on the “warning labels” Jack. Kansas was accused of replacing the science textbooks with the Bible. I will take the Kansas part for two reasons. First because you didn’t cover it, and second because it was the Kansas ordeal that drew my attention to the Creation/evolution debate. Prior to this I didn’t see it as an issue worth giving much consideration. After all, God, being all powerful, could have created by any means He chose.

Prior to the 1999 Kansas State School Board’s recommendations that brought the full furry of the news media down on Kansas I hadn’t really given evolution any more than a passing thought. However, in 1999 the news media was ablaze with accusations of Kansas replacing science textbooks with the Bible. The accusations were so incredible that I just had to check out the recommendations for myself. I went to the Kansas School Board’s website and read the recommendations. What I found is what encouraged me to get involved.
Contrary to what the media was saying the recommendations didn’t even mention the Bible, creation, or even ID. In reality what the recommendations would have done, if followed, would have increased the resources for studying evolution. They wanted the schools to provide a much more in-depth coverage of the theory of evolution which would have covered the negative aspects of the theory as well as the positive aspects.

This finding begged the question: “Why is the news media spreading these vicious lies?” To find the answer I started investigating the TOE. After all, shouldn’t evolution supporters want a more complete coverage of TOE to be taught in public schools?
What I found is that TOE is NOT the fact evolutionists claim it to be. TOE has NO empirical support, but rather is supported by fraud, “bait and switch” con games and circular reasoning.
At best TOE is a poorly supported hypothesis. In reality TOE is nothing more than atheist dogma fostered on unsuspecting school kids in the guise of science.

It was AFTER I realized that TOE was anti-science that I started studying TOE’s theological implications and determined it to be contradictory to Scripture. IOW, contrary to the constant accusations of drj11’s ilk, I opposed evolution from a scientific standpoint BEFORE I opposed it from a theological standpoint.

quote:

So your factually wrong mischaracterization of what happened bears no resemblance to the reality of the matter, and you should really spend a little time investigating statements before you make them.

The only thing I can say about that statement is: “Well DUH”. [sm=hammerhead.gif]



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 3:41:11 PM)

ORIGINAL:cow451
quote:

The main argument was that this type of sticker was something idiotic that a state like Alabama would do.

Well of course. It IS idiotic to encourage critical thinking on a subject you want to be blindly accepted.
That is as bad as asking a student to explain why 3X3=9.



cow451 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 3:55:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:cow451
quote:

The main argument was that this type of sticker was something idiotic that a state like Alabama would do.

Well of course. It IS idiotic to encourage critical thinking on a subject you want to be blindly accepted.
That is as bad as asking a student to explain why 3X3=9.


Well, we obviously need more stickers, especially in history books, sociology books and ceratinly literature texts. These stickers are politically motivated and are moronic substitutes for ideas that have little scientific validity. Alabama again being case in point.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 5:28:16 PM)

ORIGINAL:cow451
quote:

Well, we obviously need more stickers, especially in history books, sociology books and ceratinly literature texts.

If critical thinking were discouraged in those subjects I would agree. However, critical thinking is ONLY discouraged when it comes to evolution.

quote:

These stickers are politically motivated and are moronic substitutes for ideas that have little scientific validity.

We all know it is moronic to apply critical thinking to atheist dogma. It tends to be destructive to the dogma.



cow451 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 6:29:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:cow451
quote:

Well, we obviously need more stickers, especially in history books, sociology books and ceratinly literature texts.

If critical thinking were discouraged in those subjects I would agree. However, critical thinking is ONLY discouraged when it comes to evolution.

ROFLOL
quote:

quote:

These stickers are politically motivated and are moronic substitutes for ideas that have little scientific validity.

We all know it is moronic to apply critical thinking to atheist dogma. It tends to be destructive to the dogma.

All the stickers lacked were some Bible verses. At least then, the agenda would be straightforward and honest.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 6:36:51 PM)

quote:

All the stickers lacked were some Bible verses. At least then, the agenda would be straightforward and honest.


Or perhaps we could simply require all biology texts that mention evolution to have a footnote saying, "*Approved by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science".

Then at least the agenda would be clearer.



cow451 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 6:45:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

All the stickers lacked were some Bible verses. At least then, the agenda would be straightforward and honest.


Or perhaps we could simply require all biology texts that mention evolution to have a footnote saying, "*Approved by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science".

Then at least the agenda would be clearer.

Jack, you can do better. Although I realize Dawkins has played the evil villan role to the hilt. Maybe he should wear a black cape.[sm=cooltilt.gif]



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 7:37:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
On the contrary, I HAVE paid attention to what you are actually saying. That is how I can point out the flaws in it.

And yet you failed to recognize that I agreed with you about ID's anti-materialism:
Post #37-- "You were on the right track when you pegged materialism as the target."

quote:

So atheism is false simply because Richard Dawkins promotes it?

No. I disagree with his contention that atheism is a prerequisite for a proper scientific worldview.

quote:

Then please explain how pointing out the fact that evolution lacks empirical support is a religious argument.

It isn't. I think it is a false argument, but not a particularly religious one.

quote:

Maybe you haven’t actually read Jack’s posts. Here is a recent quote of his.
“I am pretty clear about the science that supports my viewpoint, which as far as ID is concerned isn't 'religious'.” – Jack, post #28, this thread.

I have read Jack's posts, actually. #28 was in response to me, and I answered his rebuttal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Am I misreading you or are you claiming that there are no scientific arguments being made against evolution?

What Jack and I determined was that no one on this thread has expressed a purely scientific argument. My exact comment was, "Not all of your arguments that I have encountered are purely scientific."
Jack agreed with, "Nor yours. Nor anyone's around here, come to think of it."


Now let's put the "science" of ID to a real test. Let's see how ID objectively explains the Designer's hand in cases like this (also addressed in the Current Events forum) and other human deformities mentioned in the same article, without resorting to some sort of religious doctrine like The Fall.

Any takers?



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 11:11:18 PM)

quote:

Now let's put the "science" of ID to a real test. Let's see how ID objectively explains the Designer's hand in cases like this (also addressed in the Current Events forum) and other human deformities mentioned in the same article, without resorting to some sort of religious doctrine like The Fall.

Any takers?


Well the scientific argument, from an ID perspective, would be that neither bad design nor a design that fails is evidence against design per se. I mean if my computer crashes, I don't conclude, "It must not be designed!"

So that is the scientific argument.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/15/2008 11:58:28 PM)

ORIGINAL:1dblthnk02
quote:

So atheism is false simply because Richard Dawkins promotes it?

No. I disagree with his contention that atheism is a prerequisite for a proper scientific worldview.
Yet you assert that ID is false simply because the Discovery Institute promotes it. Can you say “double-standard”?

quote:

quote:

Then please explain how pointing out the fact that evolution lacks empirical support is a religious argument.

It isn't. I think it is a false argument, but not a particularly religious one.

At least you agree it is not a religious argument which is a refute of this thread’s OP.
If you really think it is a false argument then you should have no problem refuting it. Simply provide some empirical evidence for goo to you evolution. I have yet to see any. I have seen fraud, “bait and switch” con games and circular reasoning proposed as empirical evidence, but no actual empirical support for goo to you evolution. Unless you can provide any actual empirical support for goo to you evolution then my argument stands as valid.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:05:51 AM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

I mean if my computer crashes, I don't conclude, "It must not be designed!"

You mean my PC really was intelligently designed? I suppose next you will say broken links aren't evidence against design?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 1:22:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You mean my PC really was intelligently designed?


I think this computer was intelligently designed to crash. Then again, that could be due to the fact that it has Microsoft Windows on it.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:13:04 PM)

quote:

You mean my PC really was intelligently designed? I suppose next you will say broken links aren't evidence against design?


Broken links are detrimental mutations. Working links of course are the accumulation of good links which have been clicked on frequently by web surfers.

In fact, you can see the evolution of the web if you study its history:

Here for example is Ebay in ~ 1997, or as we call 'The early HTML era'. Obviously there are no images because as we all know the fossil record doesn't preserve soft-parts, but the basic structure is there.

Here is Ebay in the 'pre-dynamic period', estimated to be about a little less than a decade ago; notice the basic table structures are there, but the search functions are primitive, and most of the elements are static.

As time progressed, into the 'Dynamic era' about seven years ago where databases and middleware began to rule the earth, dramatic changes are occurring, with enhanced search capabilities and dynamic links leading to the most current postings.

Even as recently as two years ago, during the dawning of the Ajaxian period, we see a fantastic interplay of elements, all being controlled and driven by robust code, streamlining activity and making the whole experience more efficient.

And so we come to today, where we see a highly adapted, very flexible, complex structure that has obviously evolved from what came before.

So there you have it; web evolution with no need for an intelligent designer.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:35:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I suppose next you will say broken links aren't evidence against design?


What about missing links?



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:35:25 PM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

So there you have it; web evolution with no need for an intelligent designer.

I must admit that is the most convincing argument against ID I have ever seen presented.



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:39:07 PM)

quote:

I must admit that is the most convincing argument against ID I have ever seen presented.


I guess this makes computer science 'psuedo-science'.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:45:45 PM)

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I suppose next you will say broken links aren't evidence against design?

What about missing links?

I don’t believe they actually exist. Belief in their existence is a worldview based assumption.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:47:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
What about missing links?

I don’t believe they actually exist.


Well, there seems to be a lot of them.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:48:42 PM)

ORIGINAL:Jhud
quote:

I guess this makes computer science 'psuedo-science'.

Then it must be religion rather than science.



unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 12:54:22 PM)

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:

Well, there seems to be a lot of them.

If evolution is true then there are a PASSEL of them.



cow451 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 1:12:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud


So there you have it; web evolution with no need for an intelligent designer.

Young Internet Creation:

"In the beginning, the web was void and without form and darkness was upon the interface of the deep...."



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 1:23:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451
"In the beginning, the web was void and without form and darkness was upon the interface of the deep...."


and man said, "let there be Internet explorer" and it was so. and man saw that there were many bugs.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 10:14:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Yet you assert that ID is false simply because the Discovery Institute promotes it. Can you say “double-standard”?

I asserted no such thing; I suggest that you more carefully re-read what I posted.

quote:

Unless you can provide any actual empirical support for goo to you evolution then my argument stands as valid.

Since I am not a proponent of any theory with the curious title of "goo to you," it would be exceedingly silly of me to try defending it.
And the validity of your argument does not stand on your ability to bluster, btw. Your argument either has its own merits or it doesn't.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well the scientific argument, from an ID perspective, would be that neither bad design nor a design that fails is evidence against design per se. I mean if my computer crashes, I don't conclude, "It must not be designed!"

We're not talking about a simple "crash" here; a non-functioning state is something that eventually happens to all machines whether organic or inorganic, some sooner than others.

But does a line of computers patterned after a specific design ever mysteriously turn out random, gross aberrations from their initial design? No. So why do humans? What do the proponents of ID propose as the scientific answer to this dilemma?



Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 10:41:24 PM)

quote:

We're not talking about a simple "crash" here; a non-functioning state is something that eventually happens to all machines whether organic or inorganic, some sooner than others.

But does a line of computers patterned after a specific design ever mysteriously turn out random, gross aberrations from their initial design? No. So why do humans? What do the proponents of ID propose as the scientific answer to this dilemma?


Actually, corrupt programs are often "gross aberrations from their initial design".



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI