Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- Mimio0
Facts? you mean opinions based on non-peer reviewed research, conglomerated within fringe non-scientific politcally motivated organizations?
cuz you might be right.
- balboa0
"black hole of hot air"
while a paradox, it's worth correcting the grammar there...
:)
- flagellum0
Nice try, mimio. Here are your peer reviewed treatments:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
But, you just keep a' wishin'. ;)
- ********0
you guys are too polarized. more understanding and less hating.
- pavlovs_dog0
" No need to sling mud at anything "
i'm just saying the flaggelate has gone so far beyong the point of being taken seriously...
- Mimio0
You quote Behe's work (Darwin's Black Box) quite regulary discipler. FACT: DBB the book and research are not peer-reviewed.
Sorry dood, stick to the facts.
- flagellum0
mimio, Michael Behe has published over 40 peer-reviewed treatments.
But, another good example of ignoring all the other examples and focusing one. ;)
- flagellum0
hehe, i love how you keep pasting that link, pavlov. If you had actually read the articles I linked, you would have an understanding of how things worked with slavery in the OT.
And no, I'm not going to get into another unproductive discussion about that with you.
- Mimio0
So what?, the cornerstone of his criticism is in that "research" and in that book, which was produced completely outside any scientific community.
The point is more than valid because you mention IC in most of your reponses.
- ********0
you guys are too polarized. more understanding and less hating.
JazX
(Jan 6 06, 11:05)
--------------------------
JazX, we'll have to disagree on this one. I am of the opinion that the Enlightenment - and the philosophies and approaches derived from it - ar emankinds great hope from rescuing itself from the self-delusional mess it is usually prone too.People take the Enlightenment - democracy, science, free markets - etc. for granted as if they'll last forever. On the contrary I believe they are an incredibly tenuous adventure, and the weight of human civilization wrapped in mythology and priestly rulers utilizing myths to dominate other sections of mankind and limit creative, critical thinking and yes freedom is more our normal mode of expression.
I happen to like modern enlightenment based civilization and would like to keep it away from those that wish to drag us back to the past, darkly through that mirror.
I don't know anything about Discipler, but his argument and where he is coming from is diametrically opposed to where I am and what I believe. Don't mistake passionate defense of the Enlightenment for hatred.
- ********0
quick question to all of you:
why don't you stick to one thread for once. ie...
Intelligent design-648
Darwinist-469and many more with a couple hundred posts...
can you please... for me... and your god or no god... stick to one thread so i can see one hit 1000 posts. please?
i think that would be damn cool.
thank you.
- ********0
my point is that we never, ever say to the other side, "hey you have a good point" these days and there is something not good about that in my eye.
have to reboot
- flagellum0
The Tick speaks of enlightment, but refuses to look at where the last 30 years of scientific discovery has been pointing. I call this sticking one's head in the sand. He is stuck in a caricature of history and what he thinks science is. He opts for what makes him feel comfortable rather than what the evidence shows. I couldn't sleep at night if I took this approach to life.
- flagellum0
well jazX, people are more concerned about their egos and what makes them "feel" intellectual, rather than following the evidence even if it makes them feel uncomfortable or challenges something they've held on to for so long.
- ********0
You may well imagine that we will at some times differ. But it is because of your clear and cogent explanations of your viewpoints that I am able to understand why some people hold opinions and values different from my own, and how their experiences have produced what seems to them reasonable beliefs.
Because you do this, and do not simply rant at me... I can appreciate and understand and respect those ideas, even when I do not agree with them. And it does happen, rather often actually, that you convince me that I don't know what I am talking about and that yours is the correct understanding.
- balboa0
TheTick: Well put and I totally agree with you.
But let's not get sucked into the trap of our repeated defense validating the attacker's assertions.
Escalation is not necessarily the answer, no matter how passionate we are about our POV.
Ignorance is not the answer either. I'm just advocating moderation and the pitfalls of philosophical jiu-jitsu.
- flagellum0
No, balboa, the answer is to directly... DIRECTLY respond to the scientific arguments. Something absent from these debates. Instead, I hear propaganda and emotional rhetoric.
- ********0
No, balboa, the answer is to directly... DIRECTLY respond to the scientific arguments. Something absent from these debates. Instead, I hear propaganda and emotional rhetoric.
flagellum
(Jan 6 06, 11:28)I'm going to have to agree with flagellum here. There is very little science in these threads and mostly philosophical jargon. I don't care for that talk. Just pounce in when something interesting get's spewed out that's factual or at least somewhat factual.
- ********0
If you are having an argument with some "enemy", try to reword his position in a way that would make it at least palatable to you. Then invite him to do the same thing with your position. You won't appreciate the dispute-melting magic in that until you try it a few times.
The trouble, of course, is that such an approach is unlikely to produce winners and losers, and we've come to think that producing winners and losers is the essence not just of politics but also of life.
- mrdobolina0
I am sorry I am not a scientist, I cant debate against discipler in scientific terms about something that he has obviously studied incredibly, right or wrong.
But dont get it twisted, this debate is all about god.
Discipler believes that the christian god is the designer. He has stated this in the past when I asked him and now he dances around it ALWAYS.
God is the elephant in the room that he never talks about anymore because it messes up his argument. He has learned this from past debates on this subject.
He talks about science incessantly, but then brings up things like the "uncaused-cause". Please explain to me the scientific basis of the uncaused cause.
ID is the trojan horse to inject religion into the public schools. This is why religious leaders are behind this.