I once thought that Foxfyre was
switching to Buddhism. :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:I started another string here somewhere asking what decides what is right and what is wrong in 2004. For myself, I define wrong as sin and right as virtue. Whatever harms me or others is sin. Everything else is virtue.
(Of course there are still the gray areas such as do you swat the fly which is good for you and your family but really really bad for the fly.)
We are on page 1337 or "leet." Just a nerdy observation.
T
K
O
Foxfyre wrote:maporsche wrote:FM, I agree. ID is a religious concept, no doubt about it. Any attempt to portray ID as non-religious, or a-religious is a bold face lie.
Every one of these court cases and school board battles is being brought about by a christian mob.
And here you make my case by expressing an opinion formed from your perception (plus probable prejudice) while you ignore other theories put forth by Plato, Buddhism, et al that are not religious concepts, and completely blow off any possibility that the school was at fault and this is what triggered the 'mob'.
It is constructive to note, however, that sooner or later the anti-IDers give up on attempting any rational or objective consideration related to ID or how the issue might be solved in a way satisfactory to both sides. Or they never waver from their opinion that "CHristians" are the 'bad guys' and nobody else is at fault. But it is for certain, sooner or later they will bash Christians in the debate.
Please show me any proof that the school was at fault and I'll accept that as truth.
I have proof that Christian organizations are actively trying to perverse our education system. Do you have ANY proof that science teachers are trying to subvert god in the classroom? Anything Foxfyre?
The concept of an intelligent designer invokes the supernatural. You can talk all you like about aliens or what not being the designer, but if a designer is required for human civilization, then a designer would also be required for alien civilization....and so on...and so on. And almost all proponants of ID don't simply focus on life on earth, but also the cosmos. Are you suggesting that the same aliens that designed life on earth also designed the universe?
Supernatural = God.
God = Religion
The American ID movement is driven WHOLLY by the Hypothesis of Christianity.
Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Fox - you dont' see the buddhists protesting for ID now do you?
Yes or no?
T
K
O
I also don't know of any cases that schools have actively
attempted to undermine Buddhist teachings either. Else
we might.
We also don't know of any cases where science teachers have actively attempted to undermine Christian teachings either.
mesquite wrote:I once thought that Foxfyre was
switching to Buddhism. :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:I started another string here somewhere asking what decides what is right and what is wrong in 2004. For myself, I define wrong as sin and right as virtue. Whatever harms me or others is sin. Everything else is virtue.
(Of course there are still the gray areas such as do you swat the fly which is good for you and your family but really really bad for the fly.)
I found this very intriguing, and more than a little bewildering, Mesquite. What bewilders me is the calendrical specificity. Why should the concepts of "right" and "wrong" differ in 2004 from any other year?
I tell, them theists is just plain goofy ! ! !
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:McGentrix wrote:real life wrote:Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?
Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?
Yup. Both are dogs.
Just as Yao Ming and the actors who played 'Munchkins' in the Wizard of Oz are all humans.
Same species, lots of variation within it.
How does that prove evolution?
None the less, a wolf will never give birth to a chihuahua, and yet we know that all dogs evolved from wolves.
That pretty much trashes the logic of your "one thing will never give birth to another thing" argument, regardless of whether we're talking about species or breeds.
I'd like a clarification, ros.
You previously insisted:
Quote:More importantly, nowhere in evolutionary theory does it say that any organism will give birth to an organism of a different species.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1979793#1979793
But now you seem to take the opposite position, i.e. that a member of one species MUST give birth to one of another species to move evolution forward
So, which is it?
Also, wolves and domestic dogs CAN interbreed. Do you deny this?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw the leet thing.
Anti-IDers have a psychological problem.
They are the trouble-making, rebellious types. Communists have the same problem. Non-conformists. With what they think of as truth for comfort.
America was founded by rebels. Losers in Europe.
Who, in their right mind, would get on a leaky, rat and lice infested slow boat to a strange land across 2000 miles of wild ocean? Desperadoes in my opinion. Drummed out of Europe. Failures. Runaways. Bolters. People who's talents were inadequate to get them what they thought they deserved. Their pure descendents still today act out the same wy of life as the Amish do and others. The adventurers and money men who followed them for very different reasons are the ones who made America great.
Such types when they win the argument have then to conform and conformism doesn't get more conformist than having to adhere to strict scientific truth. And, like triumphant Communists, their rebel streak is frustrated by their own system which is, by its very nature, bureaucratic to the core of its being and intensely frustrating to their rebel type. The rule breaker is the hero of much in American literature and movie plot.
I could be tempted to get expansive on such a topic but I know that America is far too complex to be dealt with in a few lines of prose.
But the anti-IDers need ID like they need food. It is something to butt against which satisfies their subversive drives and gets them attention and is a perfect vehicle for them to express outrage against in gross language shot through with indignation. (see fm's "disruption of a religious meeting" post).
ID is so convenient to them that a suspicion arises that they invented it to vent their rage against. Like buying a punch-bag.
But what if ID is routed? The psychological springs of their actions don't go away so fast. So infighting and purges begin until the struggle for survival principle, and they have no others, causes a great leader to arise, the winner, like Stalin, who surrounds himself with SCs (scientifically corrects) and it's goodbye democracy and freedom and rigidity sets in leading in short order to paralysis. The bureaucracy is the natural home of the mediocre and when you see an undending parade of posts, which purport to be concerned with the education of 50 million kids, written in such a way that the writers of them can hardly be said to be able to read and write and who dive onto the softest targets as if their life depends upon it all the while hiding away from any serious challenge, it is easy to discern the dim outlines of an anti-ID future.
Why do you do it wande?
This "next page" thing. It can't possibly be natural because I've never seen anybody else do it and you've done it a few times.
As a sometime scientist I am habitually conditioned to be curious about the cause of an effect and especially if it is an unusual effect. Like when a tit pops out in the pub. I'm not the only one who gawps at it. If it was normal for them to pop out it wouldn't be unusual and we would cease to notice them anymore. In fact, when I think about it, it seems unusual for them not to be popping out all the time in view of the obvious,easily observable, fact, a key scientific tool, that they are continually teetering on the edge of doing just that as if a strong urge for them to do so is at work which is only being held back by agreed Christian theology which I would presume is designed so that we never get indifferent to them and thus take away a vital weapon in the armoury of our ladies who are well known to have a fairly empty quiver. I did of course mean ladies in general and not any particular lady. I meant your ordinary, everyday, common-or-garden specimens which is all that ever appears in my pub. Mr Waugh has described them as the "salt of the earth".
What would anti-IDers do to prevent ladies getting their tits out all the time. They have fought a battle over breast feeding in public places after all and can hardly be said to be winning it.
What do you think, wande, causes that effect you see in Baywatch where two pieces of flimsy rag are arranged to cover up what are obviously self-defining "dirty bits". Why would an anti-IDer insist on that small aspect of the Christian psuedomorphosis being continued. What reasons would you give?
But that's bye-the-bye. What is your reason for wasting a post space and, as I've asked before but as usual not been answered, how do you know when it is the bottom of the page which you have to do to avoid the shame of appearing there and are you advising us all to do the same as you so that we don't lower ourselves in your estimation as we must do when we suffer the fate you are so careful to avoid.
I know I have offered viewers an explanation but I'm not a bigoted person and I am fully aware that it was mere speculation and provided more in the way of entertainment than anything.
Clear it up for us old chap. Why?
wandels clip
Quote:"They do not cover the weaknesses of evolution," said Don McLeroy, chairman of the state board, of the state's science textbooks. "They present evolution as an absolute fact."
Well there Leroy, we can present evolution's problems and gaps and still teach it as a fact. I have problems with the incompleteness of foraminiferan evolution patterns, and there are gaps in the fossil record (like bats or large flightless birds). However, one gap does not a theory destroy, it makes us look harder.
Speaking of gaps in ID, where do we begin?
How can you ever begin c.i. when you can't understand what you're being told although I do so sympathise because I know that to understand you might have to think things through a little more carefully than you have previously bothered to do and eat a great deal of humble pie and that sure ain't what you like in your nosebag is it.
spendi, Please address the issue about gaps in ID; not about humble pie.
Thank you.
spendius wrote:Why do you do it wande?
This "next page" thing. It can't possibly be natural because I've never seen anybody else do it and you've done it a few times.
personal vanity.... a way of controlling the items discussed.... and mostly to irritate you, spendi!
Hey lads--I just heard on the news that Mr and Mrs Clinton have being going the church and taking Chelsea with them.
One presumes that she has lost the anti-IDer's vote from that one statement alone if what anti-IDers call churchgoers on this thread is anything to go by.
Perhaps Mrs Clinton feels she can afford to do that as their votes are insignificant in the general run of things. And a churchgoer has won the GOP caucus in Nevada too.
It's obvious who the candidates think are contrarians. Deciding who is the contrarian on this thread is obviously some more of that "projection" thing.
