Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
Maybe Rich can invite William Dembski to weight in on this thread. Not having an academic degree in Natural Sciences has never been a prerequisite to join in 'Proof of God' debates on the CF so he would fit right in. Plus, it seems William has resigned all of his professional Creationist positions, subsequent to being fired from a non-paying, non-teaching position at Baylor, so probably he has the time. Could be fun.
Note: Rich has had me on 'ignore' for forever so someone will have to quote me so he can see the proposal.
Rich has me on ignore as well.
I think my posts create too much cognitive dissidence for him to handle.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
It is neither an assertion, harsh or silly. Nor am I attacking anybody. You are interpreting anything I say in a way that suits your position and your own needs.
Evolution, unlike Faith, is falsifiable. Being falsifiable, anyone is free to falsify it, including creationists. Yet evolution has stood testing for 150 years and shows no sign of being toppled.
The creatipnist material is flawed for the reasons given in several articles that I have posted. That is simply an observation, not an attack.
Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Your 97% statistic reminds me of my thought: 97% of statistics are made up at the time of use.
Your doubt of lots of people reminds me the majority of Muzzies are peaceful. The fact that 10% are not still makes 100,000,000 people. Lots of people is probably in the hundreds of millions. That is lots.
Maybe you should watch the video also.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion.
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Your 97% statistic reminds me of my thought: 97% of statistics are made up at the time of use.
Your doubt of lots of people reminds me the majority of Muzzies are peaceful. The fact that 10% are not still makes 100,000,000 people. Lots of people is probably in the hundreds of millions. That is lots.
Maybe you should watch the video also.
Rich,
Take some time to educate yourself. (But I know you won't)
NDT goes over the numbers of those who believe in creationism with in the scientific community, and relates it to their level of distinction with in the community.
Actually, he does a pretty good job overall of demonstrating why the more intelligent and the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in Creationism/Intelligent design.
Enjoy!!
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
About 97% of the scientific community supports evolution. Those "lots of people" that doubt it must not be too many.
Without regard to the accuracy of the 97% assertion, the "vast majority" of "scientists" support AGW.
And of course AGW is bullshit.
So you're in good company.
"Support of the scientific community" is not proof of anything.
The theory of evolution has not been proven.
A person asserting that the subject of their faith is "conclusive" is simply arrogance on the part of the person asserting it.
Evolution is a fact. Biologist Richard Lenski:"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, ... generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Stoning was considered the most harsh or dreaded method of death penalty, people could still be killed in other ways if the stoning method was deemed over the top for the offence.
over time they could completely omit stoning as a punishment , whist keeping other more humane methods of death penalty.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Faith just means holding a conviction without evidence proof to an ontological certainty
Proof entails evidence... sufficient evidence to prove a proposition.
A creationist evangelist said the [scientifically hybridized] modern day banana
displayed all the evidence needed to prove God created the perfect banana from the start.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, it was discovered that many of them were beloved family members who had strayed, some were productive members of society, the world became smaller and we found that in some cases stoning weird family members was not always looked upon as a good thing to do, and generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Would that be considered new data for the philosophical/theological for the discussion of stoning those with alternative sexual preferences?
Geno
How can God, who knows supposedly knows EVERYTHING collect new data and learn?
"He" can deem it new to him????
Besides, as Idaho mentioned, it's just the whims of society.
But, "He" could if "He" wanted to.
I think?
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
In the intervening years, since the stoning of sodomites was instituted, ... generally society itself has become less likely to stone folks for any offense.
Stoning was considered the most harsh or dreaded method of death penalty, people could still be killed in other ways if the stoning method was deemed over the top for the offence.
over time they could completely omit stoning as a punishment , whist keeping other more humane methods of death penalty.
As in Banishment? Into the Wilderness, away from the society and all its support systems? Leading to a most certain death at the hands of the beasts or starvation and thirst?
But in today's connected world that one might not work so well.
Besides, I sorta remember God determined the penalty to be stoning, no?
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Old Testament capital punishment varied according to the offence.
Stragulation (the residuary capital punishment where no other mode of execution is prescribed) Slaying by sword (decapitation or other appropriate methods) Hanging Burning Stoning (confined to the 18 offenses for which scripture had expressly prescribed)
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Besides, I sorta remember God determined the penalty to be stoning, no?
They asked God which specific death penalty they should apply .
not if they should apply a death penalty.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
I am not ready to be an atheist, but anybody that believes in the creation story in the bible has to believe in evolution if they only look at the human race. You know, like the difference between Eskimos, Negros, Aztecs, Scandinavians, Japs, Hawaiians, Semites, and even West Africans vs East Africans. The list could be very long of folks that adapted to their environment and lived in isolation.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
It is neither an assertion, harsh or silly. Nor am I attacking anybody. You are interpreting anything I say in a way that suits your position and your own needs.
Evolution, unlike Faith, is falsifiable. Being falsifiable, anyone is free to falsify it, including creationists. Yet evolution has stood testing for 150 years and shows no sign of being toppled.
The creatipnist material is flawed for the reasons given in several articles that I have posted. That is simply an observation, not an attack.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
[quote=DBT]A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Your charge of 'faith' is false. Creationists are free to publish papers, present their evidence just like anyone who works in the field and actually understands the subject matter, they are free to falsify evolution if they are able. But they are not able.
They are not able because their work is flawed. It is biased toward a preconceived conclusion that the world and life is created. So in order to make the evidence fit their assumption of creation they must engage in the way described in the articles I provided.
The creationist material is not aimed at the scientific community but theists who glance over it and get a sense of justification a sense of legitimacy where none exists.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the situation. Evolution is not in doubt.
Your answer is not harsh. It is silly. Again you make a bold assertion that is not supported by the facts. Evolution is in doubt by lots of people. Watch the video "Expelled! No intelligence Allowed." Don't read someone's opinion. Do it yourself.
Instead of attacking the work of ICR, how about picking one of their current topics of study and bring us your critique.
Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
You are setting your own terms and conditions. Evolution is based on observation, evidence and testing, therefore it is falsifiable. You may be thinking of faith and conflating the two.
