Santorum: Satan is working on the USA

nx4bama · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
that has nothing to do with being fired for trying to do research on evolution which is how you presented it, yet another in the many red herrings thrown out. and i am familiar with the bulk of the work (it does not rise to the level of research) done in support of ID. remember, you are the one coming on here asking questions.

so, if i find a biologist that was fired for question evolution, you will concede my point? is that what your saying? i highly doubt it.....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=2
note the 5th paragraph

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
if he is unnecessary, how did life begin?
did he or did he not say the quotes i attributed to him? so, how am i reading something that isn't there? so, darwin says we should find a finely graduated organic chain in one breath and then says, oh wait.... ????

the development of two completely new systems that serve no purpose whatsoever by themselves does require simultaneous mutations or they would have been removed by evolution because they are "nonviable"

and, NO, the evidence is just as suggestive of design as it is for evolution. you, yourself, have dismissed the idea of design because it is not scientifically testable (and because you reject the idea of a god). maybe not, but by observation we can conclude logically that things have a design.... if my 2 year old types on my keyboard and there is a word that appears out of a hundred letters typed, would you be surprised that it was random? of course not. however, if he typed a paragraph that was grammatically correct, you'd call me a liar if i said he typed it. what's the difference? we can look at the information and conclude that it was not by accident that the paragraph came to be. the world is vastly complex.... aside from the creatures in it, there are a lot of factors that had to be "just so" to have life here. the probability of all those taking place is beyond astronomical. So, it's like the paragraph.... Did this "grammatically correct paragraph" come into existence by chance or was it designed???

sounds like your beef is with the concept of science and not any one poster on here. unless you are trying to convert everyone to your worldview

Bamabuzzard · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
sounds like your beef is with the concept of science and not any one poster on here. unless you are trying to convert everyone to your worldview

You will first need to send a check (preferably blank) to NX4Buzzard Ministries. We also like cash money as well. :biggrin2:

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
so, if i find a biologist that was fired for question evolution, you will concede my point? is that what your saying? i highly doubt it.....

i'm not even sure what your point is. but if you could find a biologist who was fired for questioning evolution, it would have absolutely no effect on the scientific validity of evolutionary biology and it would certainly say nothing about the validity of ID. I'm not sure why you think it would.

nx4bama · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
sounds like your beef is with the concept of science and not any one poster on here. unless you are trying to convert everyone to your worldview

isn't that what YOU are trying to do? but no, i'm all for science.... just don't think we should rule out any possibility just because it conflicts with an "established" theory....

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

Bamabuzzard said:
You will first need to send a check (preferably blank) to NX4Buzzard Ministries. :biggrin2:

only if he promises to pray for me

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
isn't that what YOU are trying to do? but no, i'm all for science.... just don't think we should rule out any possibility just because it conflicts with an "established" theory....

evolutionary biology is not my worldview, it is established scientific theory. possibilities are not ruled out because of conflict with an established theory. please go re-read cbi's post a few pages back about how science works, it explains things pretty concisely and clearly.

and i am not "promoting" evolutionary biology or science, i am pointing out why ID is bunk.

Bamabuzzard · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
only if he promises to pray for me

Don't worry 92 I'll send up a prayer for you. The B.I.B.L.E states that if a brother has an issh-uh with another when coming before the throne that he is to first go reconcile with that brother then come back to the throne. So, you two need to kiss and make up, publicly on this board, with pics of course, THEN AND ONLY THEN can he pray for you. :wink:

And I'll speak for Riz on this one "Are y'all hawt?"

nx4bama · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
i'm not even sure what your point is. but if you could find a biologist who was fired for questioning evolution, it would have absolutely no effect on the scientific validity of evolutionary biology and it would certainly say nothing about the validity of ID. I'm not sure why you think it would.

now who's having trouble following along? i said they weren't being allowed to research or question it.... that some were fired from their jobs for questioning it... you said, NO WAY

nx4bama · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
evolutionary biology is not my worldview, it is established scientific theory. possibilities are not ruled out because of conflict with an established theory. please go re-read cbi's post a few pages back about how science works, it explains things pretty concisely and clearly.

and i am not "promoting" evolutionary biology or science, i am pointing out why ID is bunk.

you're doing nothing but trying to discredit me as a person.... you have questioned my intelligence, you have suggested that i can't read... it's been quite awhile since you actually brought any good info to the table here

twofbyc · Feb 24, 2012

DT_pop:

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
now who's having trouble following along? i said they weren't being allowed to research or question it.... that some were fired from their jobs for questioning it... you said, NO WAY

you said

some are doing these things.... and are being fired from their jobs for conducting such research.

the links you posted had nothing to do with conducting research.

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
you're doing nothing but trying to discredit me as a person.... you have questioned my intelligence, you have suggested that i can't read... it's been quite awhile since you actually brought any good info to the table here

did you get your hair shirt at a 2 for 1 sale? you play the victim very well. and i posted a very relevant link about 11 posts ago. but yeah, i've just been goofin 'round the last 20 minutes

Jon · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
Since a couple of you have thrown links at me with no discussion, here is my contribution

http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

sorry to rehash this but I think it's critical here to point out that the Discovery Institute is a Christian based organization that is patently anti-science. They have claimed forever to not be so (I thought lying was a sin, eh whatever) but have been publicly busted in the Kitzmiller case as well as publicly elsewhere. Most famous of this is the "wedge Strategy" which they refer to as "Evolutionist Propaganda" but was actually an internal document that was accidentally released to the wild. Read the wiki link on the Wedge and see why no one who understands what Science actually is takes these people seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

here's an excerpt from Wikipedia

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[2] The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4] The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.[5]

for more fun reading look up their takes on Geology, Astronomy and other sciences. Fun things like the great flood of Noah causing the Grand Canyon in days... It only takes a little research to show this organization is one that starts with an answer (that being a Christian god did it) and then cherry picks data that they think supports it and tries to call it science. In the Kitsmiller case one of their lead attack dogs (Ken Hamm iirc) was actually forced to admit that under their definition of Science that Astrology would have to be considered a Science

J

rizolltizide · Feb 24, 2012

SimplyTide said:
I wish I had more time to spend on this forum. You guys/gals seem to have found a balance between serious discussion and fun. Not too many posters here seem to take themselves too seriously.

The solution to all problems lies within these hyah walls. Just ask.

rizolltizide · Feb 24, 2012

cbi1972 said:
To believe in a designer with the capability of creating our universe is at least as large a leap as to believe in spontaneous existence of the universe itself. Furthermore, postulating a designer resolves nothing, because then, in infinite regression, the origin of the designer is in need of explanation.

In other words, ain't nobody knows nothing about nothing.

You're welcome.

lafella · Feb 24, 2012

92tide said:
did you get your hair shirt at a 2 for 1 sale? you play the victim very well. and i posted a very relevant link about 11 posts ago. but yeah, i've just been goofin 'round the last 20 minutes

????

->>>> ?

cbi1972 · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
if he is unnecessary, how did life begin?

The origin of life is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, but there are several competing hypotheses, not that you are really interested.

nx4bama said:
did he or did he not say the quotes i attributed to him? so, how am i reading something that isn't there? so, darwin says we should find a finely graduated organic chain in one breath and then says, oh wait.... ????

You are badly misinterpreting Darwin and I've explained it several times.

nx4bama said:
the development of two completely new systems that serve no purpose whatsoever by themselves does require simultaneous mutations or they would have been removed by evolution because they are "nonviable"

The incremental changes would serve purposes by themselves in addition to strengthening each other. Your charge of nonviability does not work.

nx4bama said:
and, NO, the evidence is just as suggestive of design as it is for evolution. you, yourself, have dismissed the idea of design because it is not scientifically testable (and because you reject the idea of a god). maybe not, but by observation we can conclude logically that things have a design.... if my 2 year old types on my keyboard and there is a word that appears out of a hundred letters typed, would you be surprised that it was random? of course not. however, if he typed a paragraph that was grammatically correct, you'd call me a liar if i said he typed it. what's the difference? we can look at the information and conclude that it was not by accident that the paragraph came to be. the world is vastly complex.... aside from the creatures in it, there are a lot of factors that had to be "just so" to have life here. the probability of all those taking place is beyond astronomical. So, it's like the paragraph.... Did this "grammatically correct paragraph" come into existence by chance or was it designed???

Randomness is only half of what evolution does, and evolution is an iterative process. If you were able to selectively keep randomly typed words (an arbitrary measure of fitness) and have the rest of the "paragraph" randomly retyped over a long period of time, you would get more and more words. If then, you shuffled the words and kept phrases that made sense (another arbitrary measure of fitness), and reshuffled the rest, then you would get more and more phrases. And so on and so forth, for sentences, and paragraphs and ever increasing levels of complexity and organization. Trying to discredit evolution as "pure randomness" is a straw man that ignores what evolution actually is.

92tide · Feb 24, 2012

lafella said:
????

->>>> ?

evolutionists be climbing in the windows

It's On A Slab · Feb 24, 2012

nx4bama said:
you're doing nothing but trying to discredit me as a person.... you have questioned my intelligence, you have suggested that i can't read... it's been quite awhile since you actually brought any good info to the table here

If he did, that question has been answered long ago.

Santorum: Satan is working on the USA

All-SEC

TideFans Legend

FB Moderator

TideFans Legend

All-SEC

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

FB Moderator

All-SEC

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

It's On A Slab

Guest

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!