| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,638 Views) | |
| abradf2519 | Jun 9 2006, 01:51 PM Post #451 |
|
Member
|
If they are not teaching abiogenesis, its the first time I have heard of this. They taught it to me when I went to school and called it "Evolution". Panspermia and Doc's Navajo myths (I wonder if he likes the term myth?) are included under ID. Remember I said the designer is not named? ID is inclusive of all creation stories until evidence of who the designer is, is discovered. You seem to think that Panspermia and Doc's Navajo myths are different than ID. I don't understand how you can think this.
Another thing you do that I don't understand. If I talk about ID with my ID hat on, and then later make a statement about creation with my religion hat on, you put the two statements together and tell me I am contadicting myself. I am not. <ID hat>Evolution could be evidence of tool marks made by the designer. </ID hat> I have to use this supposition because of the evidence of evolution in nature. <Religion hat>I think that evolution is an invalid theory all together. God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour days. </Religion hat> I can discount the evidence of evolution and its suppositions because of my religious beliefs.
I believe the scientific community is being unfair and political. Demski and others are doing the work necessary to put together the theory of ID. If the scientific community refuses to recognise it because they ignorantly consider it religion, then they are wrong. Are the people who think the Yamaguni Monument is man made being religious? |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 02:04 PM Post #452 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
All I have is an actual textbook sitting here with nothing about abiogenesis in it. Do you have something you can show us? Neither panspermia nor Doc's Navajo creation myth imply intelligent design. Panspermia simply posits spores of some sort from elsewhere in the Universe arriving on earth as the start of life. No design there. Just happened. "Another thing you do that I don't understand. If I talk about ID with my ID hat on, and then later make a statement about creation with my religion hat on, you put the two statements together and tell me I am contadicting myself. I am not." You are. It's double-speak. If I say, it is, then turn and say, it is not, I contradict myself, no hat is big enough to hide that. "I can discount the evidence of evolution and its suppositions because of my religious beliefs." I'd love to hear this one. Or do you mean you yourself do not personally believe it? "I believe the scientific community is being unfair and political." In what way? Explain your claims They reject ID because ID is not science but religion. "Demski and others are doing the work necessary to put together the theory of ID." Agree. Just not a scientific theory. "If the scientific community refuses to recognise it because they ignorantly consider it religion, then they are wrong. " Name calling is the weakest form of argument. Not very compelling. Why don't you show us how ID is science instead. "Are the people who think the Yamaguni Monument is man made being religious?" Don't know anyone who thinks anythng of YM so I can't tell you. It would depend on how they arrive at their conclusion. Is their method based on scientific inquiry, or personal belief? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 9 2006, 02:14 PM Post #453 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
To clarify - I would say that it's the seeming exclusivity that the theory of evolution seems to enjoy that I'm in opposition to. My friend & I don't discount the whole theory, as parts of it seem quite solid. (as stated before, it's the big leap of evolution between species that we mainly object to, and the exclusive focus on the science of materialism) Again, I think both schools should be pursued: the theory of intelligent design & the theory of unintelligent design. Then let the chips fall where they may. I wanted to ask this question again, because it may have been missed: When we talk about Creationism, does this also mean the young earth theory (earth is only 6,000 years old)? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 9 2006, 02:24 PM Post #454 |
|
Member
|
Chris: Check out this link: Yanaguni Monument Most, if not all who SEE the monument, think it is man made. This is a personal belief on their part IMHO. No science involved. Geologists here in the US think it is natural. As I said before, this perfectly illustrates the problem with ID. The earth, like the Yanaguni Monument look like they were designed. The scientists however cannot accept this because this is primarily based on personal belief. But ignoring the evidence of the YM being man made is wrong, and I feel the same way about ID. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 9 2006, 02:32 PM Post #455 |
|
Member
|
<religion hat> Depends on which creationist you talk to. Some think the world is old, and some think it is young. Each use different understandings of the first chapter of Genesis. I personally have not made up my mind yet which I believe. The bible is pretty specific about 6 actual 24 hour days. Huge problems with uranium dating systems support this theory. There is compeling evidence though, that the world is very old. From rock strata to ice core samples, plus the time required for some star's light to get to the earth make the young earth theory pretty hard to swallow. </religion hat> |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 02:38 PM Post #456 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt "... I would say that it's the seeming exclusivity that the theory of evolution seems to enjoy that I'm in opposition to.... the exclusive focus on the science of materialism" That is what defines science. Sorry. Should I oppose religion because it's spiritual. Criminy, that's what it is definition. Change the definition of science to include ID, then neither is science any more. "Again, I think both schools should be pursued: the theory of intelligent design & the theory of unintelligent design. Then let the chips fall where they may." Please pursue both, it's your personal preference. But we're talking teaching biology in biology class, not personal beliefs. "When we talk about Creationism, does this also mean the young earth theory (earth is only 6,000 years old)?" |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 02:41 PM Post #457 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan "Yanaguni Monument....Most, if not all who SEE the monument, think it is man made. This is a personal belief on their part IMHO. No science involved." Then it is not science, is it, but personal relief, and largely religious I suspect. If you value analogies, use this as an understanding why ID is not science but religion. As you say "The scientists however cannot accept this because this is primarily based on personal belief." Well, there you have it. By definition, it is not science. Therefore it should not be taught in biology classes. "But ignoring the evidence of the YM being man made is wrong, and I feel the same way about ID." Sure. If there were any evidence. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 9 2006, 02:42 PM Post #458 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Very funny! OK, let me be more specific: When you use the word "Creationism," do you think young earth, or do you just think it pertains to a Creator? Shouldn't science be the support of truth, whether it's material or not? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 02:46 PM Post #459 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"Shouldn't science be the support of truth, whether it's material or not?" Scientists do. But science is about the natural world. It leaves the supernatural to folk like you and Alan and Jane. Now, please, support your truth. You've spent page after page attacking science and evolution but not providing an iota of evidence for ID that hasn't been explained by evolution specifically or science generally. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 9 2006, 02:47 PM Post #460 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
I'm behind the cyber-delay here! (Don't we have anything better to do than all be on here at the same time!?) Alan, that sounds like another discussion - or did we already do the "Gap Theory" on here? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 03:20 PM Post #461 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Is Gap Theory a Theory of ID? Does it support ID? No, wait, I remember that, the God of Gaps argument. But that argues, once again, against evolution, not for ID. Come on, I know you can do better than that. Present some scientific evidence, I'll then admit I'm wrong and say ID is materialistically scientific and should be taught in the biology class. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 9 2006, 05:24 PM Post #462 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Chris - the Gap Theory thing was actually an insider question directed at Alan, so I wasn't trying to dodge anything. Chris - You!? Admit you were wrong!? Perish the thought!
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 05:28 PM Post #463 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Did I accuse you, you, of dodging questions? I'm wondering why you didn't, answer, anyhow. The Gap Q is a Creationist insider question. So, what about ID? What is the argument, what the evidence? Stop beating around the bush. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 9 2006, 05:35 PM Post #464 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Just to be up front, what I'm engaging in is showing just how little ID has to say, for itself. Granted, there's tons of arguments against evolutionary theory, misrepresented, and science, misunderstood, but where's ID, what's ID? Beyond I believe in a Designer Christian God? Come on, guys, tell us about ID and it's claims and evidence. If you can. If there is anything. On edit, don't think I won't admit I'm wrong, already have, but let me say it clear, I'm wrong about WAP. You figure out where and how. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 9 2006, 07:39 PM Post #465 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Wireless Action Protecall? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |








1:28 PM Jul 11