97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:09 pm
Yeah, I get your point FM. But your argument makes you the fraud and manipulator who twists and turns to avoid the issue and who is unwilling to defend his statements, not me. Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:21 pm
Your idea of id (ID to you) fm is pure straw. You ought to read Matthew Arnold's essay on provincialism. This is an international site. id is a lot older than 200 years. If you want to argue over your garden wall why don't you just step into your yard.

Do you think science should be unmuzzled? That's the question you are using Foxy for in order to evade it and that is straight fraud in a debate when you have been asked it directly. More than once. I answered it. And we do have to decide yes or no. Muzzling isn't a relative thing. Are you catatonic on the matter? It's the vortex of this debate. All your energies are being squandered unless you give an answer.

You would be booed out of a proper debating chamber. It's the cheapest trick known to debate.

An anti-IDer asked it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:27 pm
And I know Foxy can answer it too.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:33 pm
foxy
Quote:
But your argument makes you the fraud and manipulator who twists and turns to avoid the issue and who is unwilling to defend his statements, not me. [Smile]
. I havent heard the "Im rubber, youre glue" argument since the fourth grade.
Im feeling confident that Ive said all I can in a rather straightforward fashion. spendi
Quote:
Your idea of id (ID to you) fm is pure straw. You ought to read Matthew Arnold's essay on provincialism. This is an international site. id is a lot older than 200 years. If you want to argue over your garden wall why don't you just step into your yard.
I have no comment to this. I just pasted it because when I hear you in my mind with your charming UK accent, Im picturing Mr Toad hectoring rattie, while he cant get his own car started.

See, you dont debate spendi, you recite. There is a difference. I like to talk directly directly at a point. You like to obfuscate and never get to a point.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:39 pm
So true Farmer, so true! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 01:13 pm
sorry about the accent thing mathos. I do like the English accent. I once spent a great evening with two geologists from Manshester who were arguing about how to proprly prepare a hedgehog. I must admit that alcohol was involved so I cant fully recall all the recipes.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 01:46 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
See, you dont debate spendi, you recite. There is a difference. I like to talk directly directly at a point. You like to obfuscate and never get to a point.


Have you really no idea how ridiculous that assertion brew actually looks when you have again passed by answering the question Lola asked me and which I answered directly and emphatically and the reason she asked it is because it is at the root of the debate.

Talk directly to the point about whether you are in favour of muzzling science and which an anti-IDer put into the debate. Dover, and the other pipsqueak stuff is nothing but a pile of pillowcases with flowered designs under which you are hiding your head.

Pretending it's an abstract sophistical argument as a vehicle for showing off is pathetic.

The whole point of the establishment clause was concerned with the social consequences of ridding official educational policy of religious influence. One might presume that the Founding Fathers had been unable to make their way to their satisfaction with religion being influential. They could have answered the question as Science had at that time not raised any serious moral issues as it does today.

But for goodness sake don't assert you are debating and I am not when I have answered the crucial question and you are coyly refraining. That is objectively ridiculous and a tittering matter. Indeed it is fraudulent bigtime.

And if Mathos came in on my side I would begin re-thinking my position rather than engage him in some polite conversation with a faintly twee machismo subtext. You'll be comparing hairy chests next and discussing managed, fake danger situations.

Answer the question. Yes or no. Do you want to muzzle Science?-I think it was. It's the keystone. No more clucking eh? The viewers are waiting.

"Love Her with a feeling or else don't love Her at all." It's an old American song I gather which Dylan opened up before 250,000 fans at the Blackbushe Airport gig with and which I attended. The warm up song.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 02:06 pm
Quote:
Answer the question. Yes or no. Do you want to muzzle Science?-I think it was. It's the keystone. No more clucking eh? The viewers are waiting.
Question were you addressing this to me? whats the point? Muzzling science? You mean like Lysenko's "biologists" . Youre a weird one sir.. You hop all over (rarely ever on the topic) so I have to use my 3 paragraphs and out rule, or just ignore the entire post. I dont mean to be rude, just dont have enough time for wattle .
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 02:30 pm
SPENDI TYPED (of his own free will and accord)


And if Mathos came in on my side I would begin re-thinking my position rather than engage him in some polite conversation with a faintly twee machismo subtext. You'll be comparing hairy chests next and discussing managed, fake danger situations.

It has never been a question of taking sides Spendi, I think for myself. Your sitting there like Jesus Christ's physician waiting for the next crucifixion, printing twaddle and hearsay from the Doomsday Book!

If your going to give a sensible argument without all the tripe, then you have to portray your sentiments like a scholar! I can see that avenue will give you problems of the mind, so you simply carry on quoting, twaddling, and fetching Zimmerman into virtually every post on the whole of A2K..Why?

Maybe Zimmerman is a born again Christian and you don't want to rock his boat, I have seen pictures of him in the past with a small crucifix in one of his ears! I suppose it could always have been one of those


'You Can't Tell I'm Deaf' fancy thousand pound earing aids, but then again.

Farmer

I never knew there were any geologists from Manchester, things must be looking up!

Never tasted hedgehog, that I'm aware of, but I once witnessed one being caked in mud at a Gypsy camp, many years ago. They were apparently baking it in a ground fire, they told me the prickly bits and outer skin would fall off and the meat beneath was quite delicious. Maybe one day, you never know do you?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 02:37 pm
Of course it was addressed to you. That's an old trick too.

Lola asked the question. Do you want to muzzle science? I answered "Yes" and gave a few reasons. Lola then agreed she also was in favour of muzzling science but then got a bit confused and called me a "silly man". Like they do. I am certain Foxy agrees.

Lola is a died-in-the wool anti-IDer as far as I can tell. Or could tell should I say.

Some other stuff happened and I ended up asking you.

And you still haven't answered it.

How can I be "hopping all over the topic" when I'm at the epicentre of it thanks to Lola.

I'll direct the question at the other anti-IDers. You all answer it.

It was what I meant a long time ago by "half-baked".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 08:18 pm
spendi, Just because Lola agreed with you that science should be muzzled, that doesn't make it true for the majority of the public or science community.

You continue to advocate for a position that's losing ground almost every day by new scientific findings. ID is losing not only in the legal realm, but also in the public opinion arena. Pretty soon, you're gonna have to spend more time at the local pub, and forget discussing issues on a2k that'll leave you the lone ranger of England.

BTW, hello from Macedonia. Wink
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 08:57 pm
So wait... by "muzzle" science, what exactly do you mean? You want to prevent scientists from exploring our world?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Thu 19 Apr, 2007 09:06 pm
You have to muzzle science. Carte Blanc is Nazi heaven.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 03:03 am
More like Ghengis Khan rides again only on wheels of fire.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 03:40 am
There are now four votes in for muzzling science. Lola, grudgingly, Eorl. Foxy and myself. There are no votes yet for not muzzling science and the silence from anti-IDers is getting deafening.

c.i. has had his Macedonian rant but he hasn't voted. fm, Mathos, Hokie and the other anti-IDers are doing the virgin bride routine and the bellhop is showing them into the honeymoon suite where they are adjusting the curtains to buy a little more time. Being shafted is not something they have experienced before you see having spent their lives in teasing sweet innnocence just like the costly crowd on all sides at Dover had which shafted the poor downtrodden taxpayer in the bushes.

Hokie wrote-

Quote:
You want to prevent scientists from exploring our world?


Not at all. We seek, I presume, to encourage scientists to explore our world for the benefit of all and guided by a political process in which there is some religious influence. More of the same in other words.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 05:23 am
hokie
Quote:
So wait... by "muzzle" science, what exactly do you mean? You want to prevent scientists from exploring our world?


His means of communication is to NOT communicate. I dont know where hes going on this. (Maybe It was tucked into one of his rants) Obviously hes not even mildly associated with science or hed recognize that its never been a matter of "should it be muzzled". It IS.

Muzzling of Science has been a fact ever since the Royal Academy. (Newton was famous for exerting negative influence against Hooker and others because it would possibly demean Newtons own work.
We laugh at Lysenko and how one scientist had transformed and set back Russian biolgy for a generation and we say , with amusement, "This could never happen here"-To those I say BULLSHIT, just look out of your cubicle

Anyone who works in Climatological research or Paleoclimatology is always in danger of losing funding should their work not support the underlying premises of the funding organization. FAir? Hell NO, but the nature of science is often to address the unpopular unknown reaches of our world, and should one be unfortunate enough to uncover evidence that supports not the "conventioanl wisdom" well, people can lose industrial and governmental support at the stroke of a pen.

Continental Drift was not "settled science" till the early 1980's. It was amazing how the "old School Uniformitarians" lobbied to keep evidence of mantle plumes and other data from the journals, mostly by editorial footdragging. It was a dark side of scientific territorialism. It wasnt until industry realized that more accurate predictions could be made by consideraing how continents move around. Then the entire theory became part of orthodox uniformitarian thought when it was finally discovered that it had gone on unchecked for eons.

"Muzzling science" in spendis realm is asked in a sense of naivete just like someone would come up to you and ask you "What do you think of" The Big Bang", even though you didnt understand that entire careers are based upon whether one is a Big BAnger or not(I personally am not but this is not a symposium)

"string Theory" has always been a BANDWAGON, one could make or lose a career in Cosmology and theoretical physics if one 's position on ST was not properly sensitized to the "Canon of the LAw".

Ever since pre-reformation days, when churches attempted to muzzle science have we lived with this reality. Today, however, its a matter of conflicting evidence that underpins more dark side political agendas rather than simple religious dogma.

This all has nothing in common with ID however. ID is a fact -free interpretation and mining of "loopholes" ofscience .Were back to the old=time religion muzzling by attempting to pose a phony apparent sense of egalite' or a moral imperative in scientific research. Dr Behe, while his collegues have distanced themselves from his positions, theyve actually suffered more for their reasonable positions than is BEHE.

Look at stem cell research or Ice core data that shows Global warming is a cyclic "Uniformitarian" event, In the case of the latter, youd better not try to show your resume to most state colleges that are largely endowed by non industrial means.

Muzzle science an option? Feh! dont get me going about it spendi. Im just counting the days to when the present administrations scientific "Hacks", are without careers in Their roles as "Science Advisors". Weve been living in the Planet of the Apes for as long as Ive been in the business of Applied Science.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 06:09 am
Pure flummery which we are already as familiar with as the 3 times table.
Wattle. 10 paragraphs of wattle from the man who introduced the word.

Quote:
"Muzzling science" in spendis realm is asked in a sense of naivete


I did not ask the question. Lola asked the question. I answered it and you fm have not yet done so.

Do you want to muzzle science? Yes or no? Not what is. We all know what is and what has been. We want to know your view fm. It is the point of principle on which your whole position rests. And you know it. And your failure to answer it is, in my opinion, as slippery as the most refined snake-oil. And half-baked as I have said all along.

You can't have slightly muzzled like you can't have slightly pregnant.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 06:23 am
Didnt know Lola asked it. It sounded like you.

As far as the rest of your little rant, I supose youre entitled to spin what I said any way you wish, it doesnt deny the truth of the matter. You actually counted paragraphs? Very Happy .
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 07:13 am
That was easy enough to do compared with my usual activities associated with this thread.

However, you still haven't answered the question which is where spin ceases to exist. It is not going to escape the notice of intelligent viewers that you are continuously accusing me of faults which you yourself are displaying. In this case in the same post. It is you who is spinning. I answered Lola's question. I'm confident I can speak for Foxy. Lola and Eorl have answered it with a caress of spin.

You haven't. Decoded, your spin adds up to -"No comment". And that decoded adds up to a "Yes I do think Science should be muzzled but I don't care to admit it to everyone because it pulverizes my general position." Which adds up to "half-baked" And back we are to the snake-oil.

Surely you don't think that discrediting snake-oil eradicated snake-oil salesmen? Not at your age surely? The world mile record was about 8 minutes when snake-oil got sussed out by the scientific community. (Oh yeah).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 07:25 am
Wait a minute. Let's have another definition for 'muzzling science' before we put Foxy on that committee. I don't remember signing onto that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 02:51:17