Post Reply
Page 6 of 45  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 45 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Challenge to ID'ers
5 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2010 - 9:35PM #51
2bme
Posts: 1,145

Feb 4, 2010 -- 6:42PM, McAtheist wrote:


2beme: Asking why women are hateful attracts scorn while asking why Christians are hateful attracts sympathy.  ID is now politically incorrect so the sophisticated seek to get their rocks off stereotyping and acting superior as though they understand something.


Really?  Don't all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and pagans basically believe in a form of Intelligent Design?  That would mean that the VAST majority of people in the US believe in ID amd that it is a very standard, politically correct religious position to hold.


What I think you are actually whining about is that ID is not accepted as a valid SCIENTIFIC position to hold.  The reason for that is that ID proponents have failed to successfully move this religious idea into the scientific arena; even Michael Behe admitted that currently, the only definition of science into which ID fits would also accept astrology as science. 


So, the problem isn't with the "sophisticated" deciding that ID is politically incorrect --- the problem is that the ID proponents haven't done their homework yet.


(And by the way, if you ask why women are hateful in a roomful of men, I bet you get a pretty synpathetic response, just like you would get a sympathetic response to ID in a church group.)




Even though there are a lot of people calling themselves Christian, they are considered politically incorrect and open to abuse that could never happen to a Jew or Muslim for example.  It is just the way it is. 


The whole point is that what Christians do is as silly as saying what women do.  But it is not seen as such. 


There is simply no reason to assume that evolution is the source of organic life on earth much less man. Yet this is what is imposed on the young during the years they are held captive in public education.


Common sense suggests that evolution should be a theory that in no way either denies or affirms a conscious source of being within creation. But that is too sensible and too easy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2010 - 9:38PM #52
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 4, 2010 -- 9:35PM, 2bme wrote:

There is simply no reason to assume that evolution is the source of organic life on earth much less man.


Nobody ever said that evolution was the source of organic life on earth.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2010 - 10:04PM #53
Blü
Posts: 24,921

2bme


Even though there are a lot of people calling themselves Christian, they are considered politically incorrect and open to abuse that could never happen to a Jew or Muslim for example.  It is just the way it is.


Tough.  One day you should try being an atheist in some of the wrong places.


 


There is simply no reason to assume that evolution is the source of [all species of] organic life on earth much less man.


I agree.  Given the enormous amounts of examinable evidence that say the theory of evolution's correct, there's no need to assume anything - the facts speak loudly for themselves.


One day you really should check the modern version of the theory of evolution out.  It's not only fascinating, it's true in reality.


 


Yet this is what is imposed on the young during the years they are held captive in public education.


And by now you know why.


So all you have to do if you want your stuff taught in science classes in public schools is to present a case reasoned to scientific standards from examinable evidence that shows you're right.


If you ARE right, what could be easier?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2010 - 10:20PM #54
Cryano
Posts: 2,828

"Common sense suggests that evolution should be a theory that in no way either denies or affirms a conscious source of being within creation. But that is too sensible and too easy"


Hey Dude, guess what? It doesn't. ToE is an explanation of how the variety of life forms we observe came to be. It is silent on the question of how life began. Nor does it imply any valid theological implications - none whatever.

Religion is the longest running most successful con game in history. It works because the victims never realize they have been taken. They die first.

Although certain modern catholics are beginning to see the light.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2010 - 10:53PM #55
2bme
Posts: 1,145

Feb 4, 2010 -- 10:20PM, Cryano wrote:


"Common sense suggests that evolution should be a theory that in no way either denies or affirms a conscious source of being within creation. But that is too sensible and too easy"


Hey Dude, guess what? It doesn't. ToE is an explanation of how the variety of life forms we observe came to be. It is silent on the question of how life began. Nor does it imply any valid theological implications - none whatever.




So if a student asks it the universe and man within it is a result of conscious lawful intent, the prof should simply say that we don't know for sure but it is surely possible.  But that won't happen.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2010 - 12:07AM #56
Cryano
Posts: 2,828

Feb 4, 2010 -- 10:53PM, 2bme wrote:


Feb 4, 2010 -- 10:20PM, Cryano wrote:


"Common sense suggests that evolution should be a theory that in no way either denies or affirms a conscious source of being within creation. But that is too sensible and too easy"


Hey Dude, guess what? It doesn't. ToE is an explanation of how the variety of life forms we observe came to be. It is silent on the question of how life began. Nor does it imply any valid theological implications - none whatever.




So if a student asks it the universe and man within it is a result of conscious lawful intent, the prof should simply say that we don't know for sure but it is surely possible.  But that won't happen.




And your evidence for this is . . . what?

Religion is the longest running most successful con game in history. It works because the victims never realize they have been taken. They die first.

Although certain modern catholics are beginning to see the light.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2010 - 8:46AM #57
udcstb
Posts: 2,776

Feb 4, 2010 -- 10:53PM, 2bme wrote:


So if a student asks it the universe and man within it is a result of conscious lawful intent, the prof should simply say that we don't know for sure but it is surely possible.  But that won't happen.


Your fear is unfounded. The professor correctly would say in effect, "that is an ecclesiastical question and is in the realm of theology and not science.  This is a science class and we focus exclusively on explaining the empirical evidence known from our natural world."


Feb 4, 2010 -- 9:35PM, 2bme wrote:


There is simply no reason to assume that evolution is the source of organic life on earth much less man. Yet this is what is imposed on the young during the years they are held captive in public education.



There is considerable empirical evidence supporting evolution as the source for the biodiversity found on Earth. And there is good reason to accept the overwhelming consensus of the professional scientific community attesting to the explanatory and predictive power of evolution science. It is appropriate for science education to focus on what current science can explain and the empirical evidence those explanations are based.


And with respect to the separate issue, abiogenensis (term for genesis of life itself); there is significant science progress on that question too.  Dr Szostak’s  (the 2009 Noble Laureate in Physiology) research lab at Harvard University has published research findings that show some very promising productive chemical pathways for the initial beginnings for life on Earth.  Check it out HERE only if you are really interested in the science.


Feb 4, 2010 -- 9:35PM, 2bme wrote:


Common sense suggests that evolution should be a theory that in no way either denies or affirms a conscious source of being within creation. But that is too sensible and too easy.


Actually, that IS the scientific position and you have stated it correctly. 


All science is an explanation of the empirical evidence and that explanation is called a "scientific theory".  Science is necessarily neutral regarding ecclesiastical questions, thus science neither denies nor affirms "a conscious source of being within creation".  Science does not and cannot rule out a supernatural "Creator"; science, based on direct empirical evidence, merely rules out certain specific claims as to how a "Creator" created.


You must have been sleeping in science class when they explained that to the students.

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2010 - 3:57PM #58
2bme
Posts: 1,145

Feb 5, 2010 -- 8:46AM, udcstb wrote:


Feb 4, 2010 -- 10:53PM, 2bme wrote:


So if a student asks it the universe and man within it is a result of conscious lawful intent, the prof should simply say that we don't know for sure but it is surely possible.  But that won't happen.


Your fear is unfounded. The professor correctly would say in effect, "that is an ecclesiastical question and is in the realm of theology and not science.  This is a science class and we focus exclusively on explaining the empirical evidence known from our natural world."


Feb 4, 2010 -- 9:35PM, 2bme wrote:


There is simply no reason to assume that evolution is the source of organic life on earth much less man. Yet this is what is imposed on the young during the years they are held captive in public education.



There is considerable empirical evidence supporting evolution as the source for the biodiversity found on Earth. And there is good reason to accept the overwhelming consensus of the professional scientific community attesting to the explanatory and predictive power of evolution science. It is appropriate for science education to focus on what current science can explain and the empirical evidence those explanations are based.


And with respect to abiogenensis (term for genesis of life itself) there is significant science progress on that question too.  Dr Szostak’s  (the 2010 Noble Laureate in Physiology) research lab at Harvard University has published research findings that show some very promising productive chemical pathways for the initial beginnings for life on Earth.  Check it out HERE only if you are really interested in the science.


Feb 4, 2010 -- 9:35PM, 2bme wrote:


Common sense suggests that evolution should be a theory that in no way either denies or affirms a conscious source of being within creation. But that is too sensible and too easy.


Actually, that IS the scientific position and you have stated it correctly. 


All science is an explanation of the empirical evidence and that explanation is called a "scientific theory".  Science is necessarily neutral regarding ecclesiastical questions, thus science neither denies nor affirms "a conscious source of being within creation".  Science does not and cannot rule out a supernatural "Creator"; science, based on direct empirical evidence, merely rules out certain specific claims as to how a "Creator" created.


You must have been sleeping in science class when they explained that to the students.




You underestimate the effect of politics on science.  Common sense would suggest that the science prof. cut the BS and simply say "we don't know."  But to do that minimizes the dominance of atheistic theories so a prof cannot express common sense but instead must bend to politics and, as usual, it is the kids that suffer.


It is the same with global warming.  Science may say one thing but politics says another so science cannot serve its objective purpose but instead serves a political purpose.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2010 - 4:02PM #59
udcstb
Posts: 2,776

Feb 5, 2010 -- 3:57PM, 2bme wrote:


Common sense would suggest that the science prof. cut the BS and simply say "we don't know."  But to do that minimizes the dominance of atheistic theories so a prof cannot express common sense but instead must bend to politics and, as usual, it is the kids that suffer.



Now you are more than just unfounded, you're paranoid.  


Feb 5, 2010 -- 3:57PM, 2bme wrote:


It is the same with global warming.  Science may say one thing but politics says another so science cannot serve its objective purpose but instead serves a political purpose.



Then you should be listening to the objective scientists and not the manipulative and dishonest politicians. That is a choice you make, you know.

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2010 - 4:07PM #60
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

I have heard lots of profs say "we don't know."  But it would be silly of them to say it in cases where we DO know--and THAT'S what the Creationists and ID proponents evidently want.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 45  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 45 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook