Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on April 21, 2008, 06:57:40 AM
-
A doubt I'll find a secular university that teaches creationism. I'm okay with that. Belief that there is a God and that He created everything is a matter of faith.
... If I post anything that questions Darwinism, you say that I'm "Lying for Jesus." You want to suppress anything that questions Darwinism or anything that even hints at the possibility that there might be intelligence behind life and the universe....
I think someone needs to sit down and have a heart-to-heart one-on-one conversation with Jesus.
Your faith is seemingly so weak that you need to believe in the pseudoscience and non-science of creationism to give you "evidence" to reassure you that what you profess to believe is, in fact, true.
You post material from creationist websites on here, not least of which is so-called "Intelligent Design," which attempts to find God by looking at the protein molecules on a bacterium's butt. (Way to glorify the Almighty Lord there ::) )
Yet, when these claims are proven false, and when you are told that they have no scientific basis in fact or experiment, you retreat to the "faith" corner and scream persecution.
You need to make up your mind there.
-
I think someone needs to sit down and have a heart-to-heart one-on-one conversation with Jesus.
Your faith is seemingly so weak that you need to believe in the pseudoscience and non-science of creationism to give you "evidence" to reassure you that what you profess to believe is, in fact, true.
You post material from creationist websites on here, not least of which is so-called "Intelligent Design," which attempts to find God by looking at the protein molecules on a bacterium's butt. (Way to glorify the Almighty Lord there ::) )
Yet, when these claims are proven false, and when you are told that they have no scientific basis in fact or experiment, you retreat to the "faith" corner and scream persecution.
You need to make up your mind there.
Aw, columbusdude82, you keep creating threads about me. I'm flattered.
I already believe in God. I do not need evidence to believe in God. My faith does not rest on Creationists or Intelligent Design arguments or theories. The reason I post creationist and Intelligent Design articles is because I find them interesting, even if I do not agree with everything they say. I post them also to make people aware of what's going on, like that time when you were clueless about Hackle's fake drawings being passed as evidence for evolution in modern Biology textbooks. Remember? Or the time when MCWAY posted the article about dinosaur soft tissue in a 65 million year old dinosaour.
What I said in another post about why scientists are not really looking for evidence for an intelligence behind the universe and behind life is because atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. keep saying that if they one day stood before God, they would ask "Why did you not give us more evidence?" or "Why did you go out of your way to hide yourself"? Well, to that I would say "why did you not bother to look"? or "Why did you go out of your way to suppress those who wanted to look for the evidence?"
-
If you think pseudoscience is interesting, wait until you meet the real thing!!!
As for scientists not finding evidence of an intelligent designer, again you commit the same fallacy in assuming that they aren't finding evidence of the designer because they aren't looking hard enough, rather than the evidence is absent.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say your god is not subject to the methods of science when science turns up evidence against him or his alleged Word, and then turn around and say scientists should be looking for evidence in his favor.
If you make your god subject to the methods of science, then you have to be prepared for the eventuality that science will negate him.
-
If you think pseudoscience is interesting, wait until you meet the real thing!!!
As for scientists not finding evidence of an intelligent designer, again you commit the same fallacy in assuming that they aren't finding evidence of the designer because they aren't looking hard enough, rather than the evidence is absent.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say your god is not subject to the methods of science when science turns up evidence against him or his alleged Word, and then turn around and say scientists should be looking for evidence in his favor.
If you make your god subject to the methods of science, then you have to be prepared for the eventuality that science will negate him.
I did not know science had proved that there is no God. If that were true, all scientists today would be atheists.
-
I did not know science had proved that there is no God. If that were true, all scientists today would be atheists.
I didn't say that. I am saying that you can't have it both ways, and make your god immune to the findings of science when it doesn't suit you (and hide behind the lame "faith" claims), and then complain that science isn't looking for evidence in favor of your god.
You get to pick only one.
If you pick the first, then you should have no problem discarding the lies of creationism and trying to learn some real science.
If you pick the second, then don't start whining if science doesn't turn up evidence for god, or if it turns up evidence that goes against him.
-
I didn't say that. I am saying that you can't have it both ways, and make your god immune to the findings of science when it doesn't suit you (and hide behind the lame "faith" claims), and then complain that science isn't looking for evidence in favor of your god.
You get to pick only one.
If you pick the first, then you should have no problem discarding the lies of creationism and trying to learn some real science.
If you pick the second, then don't start whining if science doesn't turn up evidence for god, or if it turns up evidence that goes against him.
Nah, wait just a minute. Many great scientists had FAITH in God, and it was that faith that encouraged them to use and advance science to find how this God that they had faith in did what He did and how things that He created work. However, their faith did not depend on their scientific findings.
-
Nah, wait just a minute. Many great scientists had FAITH in God, and it was that faith that encouraged them to use and advance science to find how this God that they had faith in did what He did and how things that He created work. However, their faith did not depend on their scientific findings.
But none of them had to stoop to the levels of the Discovery Institute, a low end society determined to achieve an end by means of promoting lies and unscrupulous methods, acting more like the characters in Rosemary's Baby than people of faith. :)
-
But none of them had to stoop to the levels of the Discovery Institute, a low end society determined to achieve an end by means of promoting lies and unscrupulous methods, acting more like the characters in Rosemary's Baby than people of faith. :)
I'm not the Discovery Institute.
-
I'm not the Discovery Institute.
Expelled was funded by the Discovery Institute, and you're promoting it. It's one thing if Michael Moore produces a propaganda piece. He isn't claiming to do so in the name of God. People of faith should hold themselves to a higher moral standard, shouldn't they? If not, then what's the point of having faith?
-
Expelled was funded by the Discovery Institute, and you're promoting it. It's one thing if Michael Moore produces a propaganda piece. He isn't claiming to do so in the name of God. People of faith should hold themselves to a higher moral standard, shouldn't they? If not, then what's the point of having faith?
I did not know that Expelled was funded by the Discovery Institute, just as I don't know that they use "lies and unscrupulous methods". Don't believe everything you read or hear.
And "people of faith"? I thought the Discovery Institute included agnostics and secular people too. Don't they?
-
I did not know that Expelled was funded by the Discovery Institute, just as I don't know that they use "lies and unscrupulous methods". Don't believe everything you read or hear.
And "people of faith"? I thought the Discovery Institute included agnostics and secular people too. Don't they?
Physician heal thyself. Wise old words.
Loco, I'm certain you know exactly what the Discovery Institute is all about, and if not, all you have to do is look at the board of directors to get a quick overview. No mainstream institution will support or contribute to their cause... further they've been reviled for their underhanded, sneaky methods, and the lying, lying, lying about what is their real agenda. Their major contributor is a multi-millionaire who makes no bones about the fact that he would like to see the US become a theocracy. Frightening.
I love animals, but won't support PETA because I don't like their often violent methods. I guess it all comes down to your own conscience, and whether you believe the end justifies the means. I think you denigrate your faith, and yourself, by promoting the DI, but you seem to sleep well, and are okay with what they do. Go with God.
-
Physician heal thyself. Wise old words.
What?
Loco, I'm certain you know exactly what the Discovery Institute is all about, and if not, all you have to do is look at the board of directors to get a quick overview. No mainstream institution will support or contribute to their cause... further they've been reviled for their underhanded, sneaky methods, and the lying, lying, lying about what is their real agenda. Their major contributor is a multi-millionaire who makes no bones about the fact that he would like to see the US become a theocracy. Frightening.
No, I don't know. You and columbusdude are the only ones so far who have talked about their "underhanded, sneaky methods, and the lying, lying, lying about what is their real agenda".
All I know about this Discovery Institute is what the article below says and I've also watched a DVD produced by them, "The Privileged Planet", which I thought was very well made and did not have any mention of God or religion in it. I know that they are funded by religious groups, but I also know that they are funded by secular groups too, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html
I love animals, but won't support PETA because I don't like their often violent methods. I guess it all comes down to your own conscience, and whether you believe the end justifies the means. I think you denigrate your faith, and yourself, by promoting the DI, but you seem to sleep well, and are okay with what they do. Go with God.
PETA is violent? I did not know that. Is the Discovery Institute violent? How do I "denigrate" my faith and myself by promoting ID? I believe an Intelligent Designer, God, designed and created the universe and all living things. I don't get it. I do not condone violence and deception.
You did not answer my question. Did the Discovery Institute really fund the film "Expelled"?
-
Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html
Interesting article loco. Thanks for posting this. This is actually the first time (that I can recall) that I've ready anything substantive about the Discovery Institute. Not what I was expecting. Based on some of the comments I've read on this board, I expected a bunch of preachers trying to push ID into public schools. Doesn't appear that way at all. Sounds like a pretty impressive group of rebels. From the article:
The 40 fellows affiliated with the science center are an eclectic group, including David Berlinski, an expatriate mathematician living in Paris who described his only religion to be "having a good time all the time," and Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification Church, led by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who once wrote in an essay, "My prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism."
Their credentials - advanced degrees from Stanford, Columbia, Yale, the University of Texas, the University of California - are impressive, but their ideas are often ridiculed in the academic world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
Imagine that. People with advanced degrees from Stanford, Columbia, and Yale challenging Darwinism. . . .
-
Interesting article loco. Thanks for posting this. This is actually the first time (that I can recall) that I've ready anything substantive about the Discovery Institute. Not what I was expecting. Based on some of the comments I've read on this board, I expected a bunch of preachers trying to push ID into public schools. Doesn't appear that way at all. Sounds like a pretty impressive group of rebels. From the article:
The 40 fellows affiliated with the science center are an eclectic group, including David Berlinski, an expatriate mathematician living in Paris who described his only religion to be "having a good time all the time," and Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification Church, led by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who once wrote in an essay, "My prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism."
Their credentials - advanced degrees from Stanford, Columbia, Yale, the University of Texas, the University of California - are impressive, but their ideas are often ridiculed in the academic world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
Imagine that. People with advanced degrees from Stanford, Columbia, and Yale challenging Darwinism. . . .
Hey Beach.
First off, an "advanced degree" in anything other than evolutionary biology doesn't count. A degree in particle physics from MIT only means you are qualified to talk about particle physics, and to a slightly lesser extent about other branches of physics. Just as an evolutionary biologist is in no position to dismiss particle physics, so anyone with an advanced degree from any other field doesn't know enough about evolutionary biology to dismiss it or question it.
Second, here in your post is the reason why I am so opposed to the DI and their under-handed methods. They aim to deceive well-meaning, educated but non-specialist people like yourself into thinking there is a debate to be had between ID and evolution. There isn't.
Among them, these people have some degrees, but the quality of their ID "research" is absolute zero. It is so shabby that it can't get published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Furthermore, their ID concepts like "irreducible complexity" have deen falsified over and over again, not least of which in the Dover, PA trial.
So they try to bypass the review process by going to politicians and whining that the mean scientists are persecuting them.
How would you like your kids' science textbooks to contain ideas that are so false or unsupported or badly researched, that they can't even make it into a peer-reviewed journal?
-
First off, an "advanced degree" in anything other than evolutionary biology doesn't count. A degree in particle physics from MIT only means you are qualified to talk about particle physics, and to a slightly lesser extent about other branches of physics. Just as an evolutionary biologist is in no position to dismiss particle physics, so anyone with an advanced degree from any other field doesn't know enough about evolutionary biology to dismiss it or question it.
Jonathan Wells earned his PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley and he has articles, not on Intelligent Design, in peer reviewed journals.
Inertial force as a possible factor in mitosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3902112
Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8620855
Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of -catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/4/1224
-
Hey Beach.
First off, an "advanced degree" in anything other than evolutionary biology doesn't count. A degree in particle physics from MIT only means you are qualified to talk about particle physics, and to a slightly lesser extent about other branches of physics. Just as an evolutionary biologist is in no position to dismiss particle physics, so anyone with an advanced degree from any other field doesn't know enough about evolutionary biology to dismiss it or question it.
Second, here in your post is the reason why I am so opposed to the DI and their under-handed methods. They aim to deceive well-meaning, educated but non-specialist people like yourself into thinking there is a debate to be had between ID and evolution. There isn't.
Among them, these people have some degrees, but the quality of their ID "research" is absolute zero. It is so shabby that it can't get published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Furthermore, their ID concepts like "irreducible complexity" have deen falsified over and over again, not least of which in the Dover, PA trial.
So they try to bypass the review process by going to politicians and whining that the mean scientists are persecuting them.
How would you like your kids' science textbooks to contain ideas that are so false or unsupported or badly researched, that they can't even make it into a peer-reviewed journal?
And who says a person must have an advanced degree in evolutionary biology to study and comment on Darwinism? You? I disagree. Anyone who studies and has experience with biology, the human body, human development, etc. can study and comment on those subjects.
Including this DI fellow:
Robert J. Cihak, M.D., was born in Yankton, South Dakota. He received his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, where he studied under the philosopher Eric Voegelin. He earned an M.D. degree at Harvard Medical School (1962-66), and did postgraduate medical training and academic work as a surgical intern at Stanford Medical Center (1966-67), diagnostic radiology resident at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston (1967-70) and Assistant Professor of Radiology, U. New Mexico Medical School, Albuquerque, (1970-71). He then practiced diagnostic radiology in Aberdeen Washington until his retirement in 1994.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=26&isFellow=true
And this one:
Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle.
Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=11&isFellow=true
Him:
Michael J. Behe, Senior Fellow - CSC
Articles by Michael J. Behe
Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=31&isFellow=true
And him:
David Berlinski, Senior Fellow - CSC
Articles by David Berlinski
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51&isFellow=true
And:
Paul Chien, Senior Fellow - CSC
Articles by Paul Chien
Paul Chien is a Professor in the Department of Biology at the University of San Francisco and he was elected Chairman of his department twice. He received his Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California at Irvine's Department of Developmental & Cell Biology. He has held such positions as Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Environmental Engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (CIT); Instructor of Biology at The Chinese University of Hong Kong; and a consultant to both the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory of the CIT, and the Scanning Electron Microscopy & Micro X-ray Analyst in the Biology Department of Santa Clara University, California. Dr. Chien's work has been published in over fifty technical journals and he has spoken internationally, and on numerous occasions, from Brazil to mainland China-where he has also been involved in cooperative research programs. Dr. Chien edited and translated Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial into Chinese as well as Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=52&isFellow=true
That's it for now, but I have to say I am very impressed with the credentials of these people.
-
Behe made a fool of himself on the stand in the Dover trial. His own department has a disclaimer on their website disowning him.
-
Another thing, Beach: If I made a list of all the people who are FOR evolution, and who have PhD's in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, then this thread would be a hundred pages or longer. Which list would be more impressive? ;)
And I never really understood the name "Darwinism." Do you call geometry "Euclidism"? Do you call mechanics "Newtonism"? Do you call chemistry "Avogadroism" or "Curieism"? Do you call astronomy "Galileoism"? Do you call genetics "Mendelism"?
If not, then why call evolutionary biology "Darwinism"?
-
Another thing, Beach: If I made a list of all the people who are FOR evolution, and who have PhD's in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, then this thread would be a hundred pages or longer. Which list would be more impressive? ;)
I thought you were talking about science. Now you are talking politics, science being a democracy now?
And I never really understood the name "Darwinism." Do you call geometry "Euclidism"? Do you call mechanics "Newtonism"? Do you call chemistry "Avogadroism" or "Curieism"? Do you call astronomy "Galileoism"? Do you call genetics "Mendelism"?
If not, then why call evolutionary biology "Darwinism"?
And since you never really undesrtood the name "Darwinism", TalkOrigins has an explanation that might be acceptable to you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
-
Another thing, Beach: If I made a list of all the people who are FOR evolution, and who have PhD's in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, then this thread would be a hundred pages or longer. Which list would be more impressive? ;)
And I never really understood the name "Darwinism." Do you call geometry "Euclidism"? Do you call mechanics "Newtonism"? Do you call chemistry "Avogadroism" or "Curieism"? Do you call astronomy "Galileoism"? Do you call genetics "Mendelism"?
If not, then why call evolutionary biology "Darwinism"?
I'm not comparing lists. I'm talking about what an impressive list of people comprise the Discovery Institute. I just didn't expect to see such a well educated and accomplished group of people in the organization. That's what I get for listening to people like you. :)
Why do these folks make you people so paranoid?
Regarding Darwinsim, see loco's post. :)
-
What?
Don't admonish other people to do what you yourself don't. ;)
No, I don't know. You and columbusdude are the only ones so far who have talked about their
"underhanded, sneaky methods, and the lying, lying, lying about what is their real agenda".
All I know about this Discovery Institute is what the article below says and I've also watched a DVD produced by them, "The Privileged Planet", which I thought was very well made and did not have any mention of God or religion in it. I know that they are funded by religious groups, but I also know that they are funded by secular groups too, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html
That's all you found on the Discovery Institute? You aren't very good with google then, are you?
Here are two points of view, I won't bother finding you other sources, since it isn't worth anybody's time, least of all mine. One is an overview provided by wiki, which can be completely substantiated if you use your googling fingers. The other, basically reiterates my own views about why the Discovery Institute is unethical.
To add to it, and using my analogy of PETA, I wouldn't support an institution that calls for extreme, and/or violent methods. One of the biggest contributers to the Discovery Institute, and who sits on the Board, has worked with a society that calls for the execution of homosexuals and alcoholics. Under the guise of Christianity of course... sounds like Eugenics to me. He wholehearted supports turning the US into a theocracy. The shoddy, lying ethics used by the promoters of the film Expelled don't impress me either. And anyone who promotes the non-existent thread leading the theory of evolution to Hitler is mentally deranged and dangerous in my opinion. Calls for a trampling of freedom of speech, since it implies that any publication that may be potentially twisted by unscrupulous people to serve a nefarious purpose, should be squashed. That's fascism.
Deception marketing, the Discovery Institute style:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html
A chronicle of the Discovery Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
-
I'm not comparing lists. I'm talking about what an impressive list of people comprise the Discovery Institute. I just didn't expect to see such a well educated and accomplished group of people in the organization. That's what I get for listening to people like you. :)
Why do these folks make you people so paranoid?
I'm not paranoid. I KNOW that the DI charlatans do not produce real scientific research, and do not publish their DI pseudoscience in real peer-reviewed journal.
But it angers me to know that there are people who are waging a war on science and science education in this country for narrow religious motives. I think the state of science education in the USA is bad enough already!!!
-
Don't admonish other people to do what you yourself don't. ;)
Yeah, and? What's your point?
That's all you found on the Discovery Institute? You aren't very good with google then, are you?
Here are two points of view, I won't bother finding you other sources, since it isn't worth anybody's time, least of all mine. One is an overview provided by wiki, which can be completely substantiated if you use your googling fingers. The other, basically reiterates my own views about why the Discovery Institute is unethical.
To add to it, and using my analogy of PETA, I wouldn't support an institution that calls for extreme, and/or violent methods. One of the biggest contributers to the Discovery Institute, and who sits on the Board, has worked with a society that calls for the execution of homosexuals and alcoholics. Under the guise of Christianity of course... sounds like Eugenics to me. He wholehearted supports turning the US into a theocracy. The shoddy, lying ethics used by the promoters of the film Expelled don't impress me either. And anyone who promotes the non-existent thread leading the theory of evolution to Hitler is mentally deranged and dangerous in my opinion. Calls for a trampling of freedom of speech, since it implies that any publication that may be potentially twisted by unscrupulous people to serve a nefarious purpose, should be squashed. That's fascism.
Deception marketing, the Discovery Institute style:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/diagenda.html
A chronicle of the Discovery Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
No, but the source I provided is at least from The New York Times and not from some unknown, bias source like the one you posted...geocities? Can't even afford a domain name? And wiki, a website that can be edited by anybody, including yourself? Is that all you could find on the Discovery Institute, Deedee? You aren't very good with google then, are you?
Deedee, what do you really know about the Discovery Institute? Do you really believe everything you read on wiki and on generic websites on geocities? Have you seen "The Privileged Planet" produced by the Discovery Institute? Judging by that film at least, and by the New York times long article, they don't seem like anything you and columbusdude, and the questionable links you provided say about them.
Deedee, you claim that the Discovery Institute funded the film Expelled. Please substantiate your claim!
-
Yeah, and? What's your point?
What? Can you read? My point is, don't tell me not to believe everything I "hear" when you are guilty of it in your own way.
No, but the source I provided is at least from the New York times and not from some unknown, bias source like the one you posted...geocities? Can't even afford a domain name? And wiki, a website that can be edited by anybody, including yourself? Is that all you could find on the Discovery Institute, Deedee? You aren't very good with google then, are you?
Deedee, what do you really know about the Discovery Institute? Do you really believe everything you read on wiki and on generic websites on geocities? Have you seen "The Privileged Planet" produced by the Discovery Institute? Judging by that film at least, and by the New York times long article, they don't seem like anything you and columbusdude, and the questionable links you provided say about them.
Deedee, you claim that the Discovery Institute funded the film Expelled. Please substantiate your claim!
Oh brother loco, I'm beginning to think Ozmo is right and you have reading comprehension skills. I said I'm not going to bother finding you a bunch of links to read because it's basically useless and a waste of time. I said I was providing you something that reiterated MY opinion in one easy-read place. I have formed MY opinion based on what I've read elsewhere.
As far as Wiki goes, it's convenient because it's all there in one concise space and as I said, you only have to google each point and you'll find substantiating info. That's up to you.
You seem to think that New York Times article was some kind of endorsement. Sorry, I didn't get that. It didn't say much one way or the other. I don't think providing a quote calling the Discovery Institute "the love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell" by someone who says his foundation has ceased to fund the institute over their attempt to whitewash a religious agenda, overwhelmingly complimentary. Goes to my point about unethical behavior.
Oh was it my bad to say the Discovery Institute funded the film? Or is it simply a case of various fellows and people associated with that fine, venerable institution playing the lead roles? Who did fund the film? Either way, what a piece of propaganda to connect yourself to.
And yeah, I saw that other film. I also saw a PBS flick about it.
-
What? Can you read? My point is, don't tell me not to believe everything I "hear" when you are guilty of it in your own way.
Oh, okay. Sorry! I can read words on the screen, but I can't read your mind.
Oh brother loco, I'm beginning to think Ozmo is right and you have reading comprehension skills. I said I'm not going to bother finding you a bunch of links to read because it's basically useless and a waste of time. I said I was providing you something that reiterated MY opinion in one easy-read place. I have formed MY opinion based on what I've read elsewhere.
Okay, so you did not form your opinion by reading those bogus links that you supplied? Good. So you formed your opinion based on what you read elsewhere? Where is elsewhere? Please Deedee, you are the one making claims, back them up please.
As far as Wiki goes, it's convenient because it's all there in one concise space and as I said, you only have to google each point and you'll find substantiating info. That's up to you.
In the words of columbusdude please "don't quote wiki at me" You are the one making the claims. Do your homework. See, I'm beginning to realize that you did not really read some reliable source to form your opinion. You formed your opinion, made a baseless claim and now you have to cross your fingers and hope you can find reliable sources to back your claims.
You seem to think that New York Times article was some kind of endorsement. Sorry, I didn't get that. It didn't say much one way or the other. I don't think providing a quote calling the Discovery Institute "the love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell" by someone who says his foundation has ceased to fund the institute over their attempt to whitewash a religious agenda, overwhelmingly complimentary. Goes to my point about unethical behavior.
Exactly, The New York Times is not a bias source that would ever take the side of the Discovery Institute or defend them, yet, they did not portray them in the way that you and columbusdude have, far from it. And again, I have seen material produced by them and I did not get the impression that they are anything like you and columbusdude claim. That's why I'm still not buying yours or columbusdude's portrayal and demonizing of the Discovery Institute.
Oh was it my bad to say the Discovery Institute funded the film? Or is it simply a case of various fellows and people associated with that fine, venerable institution playing the lead roles? Who did fund the film? Either way, what a piece of propaganda to connect yourself to.
And yeah, I saw that other film. I also saw a PBS flick about it.
Deedee, you said that the Discovery Institute funded the film Expelled. Now you are saying that it did not? So you lied. If not for Jesus, who did you lie for then? What a piece of atheist, naturalist, bias propaganda you and columbusdude are.
Honestly, Deedee, how do you expect me to believe anything you post when you keep lying, posting baseless claims, changing your position arbitrarily, denying what you post, refusing to back up your claims, etc.? You keep doing that, not just in this thread, but in several other threads. I can't have a serious discussion/debate with you if you are like that.
-
Lol, loco!!!
Thank you King of the Pretzel Logic people, for referring to Columbusdude and myself as “pieces” of propaganda. What would you like me to do with that?
I DON’T expect you to believe anything I say, which is why I wouldn’t waste my time trying to influence you in any way. You never really respond to anything Columbusdude presents to you in any meaningful way, so why would you do so with me. If you remember my first post, I said that I wouldn’t lend support to an organization that is extremist or believes the end justifies crappy means. Apparently you do. So, go with God. I said that too. We all have to answer to our own conscience. That was my point.
That 2005 NYT article pretty much reiterates what I’ve posted for you in terms of what the DI’s real intentions and underlying agenda are, and who they are comprised of. Right down to the theocrat. So what are you on about there loco? Religious people make up the board of directors and their real focus is on getting creationism... um, scuze me... intelligent design, taught in schools. Science is a beard. In my opinion that’s disingenuous. (Please see DI’s original mission statement, or the article I linked for you, for further details, if you feel like it.)
There is the Henry P. and Susan C. Crowell Trust of Colorado Springs, whose Web site describes iits mission as "the teaching and active extension of the doctrines of evangelical Christianity." There is also the AMDG Foundation in Virginia, run by Mark Ryland, a Microsoft executive turned Discovery vice president: the initials stand for Ad Majorem Dei Glorium, Latin for "To the greater glory of God," which Pope John Paul II etched in the corner of all his papers.
And the Stewardship Foundation, based in Tacoma, Wash., whose Web site says it was created "to contribute to the propagation of the Christian Gospel by evangelical and missionary work," gave the group more than $1 million between 1999 and 2003.
By far the biggest backers of the intelligent design efforts are the Ahmansons, who have provided 35 percent of the science center's $9.3 million since its inception and now underwrite a quarter of its $1.3 million annual operations. Mr. Ahmanson also sits on Discovery's board.
The Ahmansons' founding gift was joined by $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation, based in Chattanooga, Tenn.
"We give for religious purposes," said Thomas H. McCallie III, its executive director. "This is not about science, and Darwin wasn't about science. Darwin was about a metaphysical view of the world."
The institute also has support from secular groups like the Verizon Foundation and the Gates Foundation, which gave $1 million in 2000 and pledged $9.35 million over 10 years in 2003. Greg Shaw, a grant maker at the Gates Foundation, said the money was "exclusive to the Cascadia project" on regional transportation. <--- Gates is tied to the institute through a former employee, but made it clear their contribution goes for non-creationism activities.
But the evolution controversy has cost it the support of the Bullitt Foundation, based here, which gave $10,000 in 2001 for transportation, as well as the John Templeton Foundation in Pennsylvania, whose Web site defines it as devoted to pursuing "new insights between theology and science."
Denis Hayes, director of the Bullitt Foundation, described Discovery in an e-mail message as "the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell," saying, "I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today."
Charles L. Harper Jr., the senior vice president of the Templeton Foundation, said he had rejected the institute's entreaties since providing $75,000 in 1999 for a conference in which intelligent design proponents confronted critics. "They're political - that for us is problematic," Mr. Harper said. While Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," he added, "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." <--- :o.
There’s more in that article to support my so-called “claims.” I don’t find what I posted to be bogus at all, and Columbusdude has already posted much the same, which you summarily discount. If these “bogus” articles are in fact fraudulent, why don’t you edify my dumb self and refute it all. Should take about 3 minutes if it’s all untrue.
I was wrong about the DI funding the movie, possibly. It was a wealthy Canadian Christian evengelical who provided the cheques. He and the other producers worked with DI for two years, using their fellows as subjects for their propaganda flick. So you’re right... DI didn’t provide cash, just a whole lot of support. I hope this is a good enough link to back that up.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/hollywood_gets_the_message_abo.html
And here is the unbiased review of that flick by the NYT, which has already been posted for you and ignored.
Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary
By JEANNETTE CATSOULIS
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of "big science" to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody's Business for The New York Times.)
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an "atheist" — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in "Planet of the Apes." This is not argument, it's circus, a distraction from the film's contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn "Expelled" is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
And that’s just one review, similar to those of many other unbiased reviewers. Many of them are appalled at the association of Hitler to the theory of evolution. As well they should be. It’s disgusting. But that’s DI for you! So my original post stands. I would feel embarrassed to support an institution like that, but you’re okay with it.
Since you continue to support this flick and its contents wholeheartedly, perhaps the NYT is only unbiased when you believe what they write is to your benefit but not when you don’t approve. It would seem to be so. So how can anyone give anything you post any credibility?
-
Good post, Deedee!
loco's trademark behavior is to go around posting creationist nonsense on here, then when he is called out, he says something along the lines of "I don't necessarily believe it. It's just something I found interesting."
Even when you debunk some of the creationist claims he posts, he will still post them again a few weeks or months later. When you tell him he is "lying for Jesus" he gets all hurt on you.
Notice how he completely ignored my post quoting Dembski and proving that ID is not a secular movement (as loco likes to say), but a re-incarnation of your grandpa's creationism.
-
Wow, Deedee! Let's start over. Columbusdude and I were discussing my alleged "crisis of faith". You decided to jump into our discussion. Just look at our exchange for one minute:
Nah, wait just a minute. Many great scientists had FAITH in God, and it was that faith that encouraged them to use and advance science to find how this God that they had faith in did what He did and how things that He created work. However, their faith did not depend on their scientific findings.
But none of them had to stoop to the levels of the Discovery Institute, a low end society determined to achieve an end by means of promoting lies and unscrupulous methods, acting more like the characters in Rosemary's Baby than people of faith. :)
I'm not the Discovery Institute.
Expelled was funded by the Discovery Institute, and you're promoting it.
Now you say:
I was wrong about the DI funding the movie, possibly.
So, let's start over. I am not the Discovery Institute. The film Expelled does not focus on what "should be taught" in public school classrooms or museums. Instead, it simply defends the academic freedom of individual scientists and college professors to research, write, and speak publicly about their intelligent design views.
-
Good post, Deedee!
loco's trademark behavior is to go around posting creationist nonsense on here, then when he is called out, he says something along the lines of "I don't necessarily believe it. It's just something I found interesting."
Of course. Even creationists disagree among themselves. There are Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, etc. Not all agree.
Even when you debunk some of the creationist claims he posts, he will still post them again a few weeks or months later. When you tell him he is "lying for Jesus" he gets all hurt on you.
All hurt on you? Over you claiming that I'm "lying for Jesus"? I've been called worse, so don't worry. I just think that is not accurate and doesn't make sense. A secular Jew makes a film about ID and that gives you and Dawkins another excuse to attack Christianity.
Notice how he completely ignored my post quoting Dembski and proving that ID is not a secular movement (as loco likes to say), but a re-incarnation of your grandpa's creationism.
I was actually going to post a long response to that, but I lost interest. We must separate in our discussion the ID movement, whatever that is, and the ID theory. I never said that ID is secular. I only said that it isn't necessarily Christian because an ID advocate could be an atheist, for example, who believes that some advanced alien civilization from another galaxy is responsible for the origin of life on earth. How then is ID Christian in that case?
-
Good post, Deedee!
loco's trademark behavior is to go around posting creationist nonsense on here, then when he is called out, he says something along the lines of "I don't necessarily believe it. It's just something I found interesting."
Even when you debunk some of the creationist claims he posts, he will still post them again a few weeks or months later. When you tell him he is "lying for Jesus" he gets all hurt on you.
Notice how he completely ignored my post quoting Dembski and proving that ID is not a secular movement (as loco likes to say), but a re-incarnation of your grandpa's creationism.
He reposts those things over and over, even when they've been debunked, because he believes them wholeheartedly. A few posts above, I said that flick Expelled was produced by evangelical christians, and two posts down he's claiming it was made by a secular jew. Nothing gets through. That's why it's useless to argue. But at least it lends some balance to the forum. ;D
Anyway, I've gotten some great lessons in science reading the posts here, like yours, which has been really interesting. I used to fall into a coma during science classes so was one of those left behind kids for a long time.
It's still amazing to me though, when the religious who post here, claim ID isn't just a repackaged version of creationism.
-
He reposts those things over and over, even when they've been debunked, because he believes them wholeheartedly. A few posts above, I said that flick Expelled was produced by evangelical christians, and two posts down he's claiming it was made by a secular jew. Nothing gets through. That's why it's useless to argue. But at least it lends some balance to the forum. ;D
Deedee, I was referring to Ben Stein. He is a secular Jew.
-
Wow, Deedee! Let's start over. Columbusdude and I were discussing my alleged "crisis of faith". You decided to jump into our discussion. Just look at our exchange for one minute:
Now you say:
So, let's start over. I am not the Discovery Institute. The film Expelled does not focus on what "should be taught" in public school classrooms or museums. Instead, it simply defends the academic freedom of individual scientists and college professors to research, write, and speak publicly about their intelligent design views.
I think the point I was trying to make was that scientists for a long time have been able to live with both faith and science quite harmoniously.
You say you are not the Discovery Institute, but all that crap... Darwin's work being "Hitler's handbook", the flick Expelled, the repackaging of creationism into some lame ID movement to get around the courts' decision, calling people who study the theory of evolution "Darwinists" to make them sound like some small cult of wackos... it's all spearheaded by that group. And you post their propaganda.
The Discovery Institute may not have actually financed the movie, but they funded its content and lies. Same thing to me. And as they fully admit, they don't have a theory to get creationism taught in schools these days, so in the mean time, they'll wittle away at ignorant people with propaganda flicks. But that is the ultimate goal.
-
Deedee, I was referring to Ben Stein. He is a secular Jew.
Ben Stein didn't "make" this movie. Evangelical Christians from Canada did. Look it up.
-
Ben Stein didn't "make" this movie. Evangelical Christians from Canada did. Look it up.
I did look it up. Which one of these companies is this Evangelical Christian from Canada who did "make" this movie?
Production Companies
Premise Media Corporation
Rampant Films
Distributors
Rocky Mountain Pictures (2008) (USA) (theatrical)
Other Companies
DBC Sound post audio facility
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/companycredits
-
I did look it up. Which one of these companies is this Evangelical Christian from Canada who did "make" this movie?
Production Companies
Premise Media Corporation
Rampant Films
Distributors
Rocky Mountain Pictures (2008) (USA) (theatrical)
Other Companies
DBC Sound post audio facility
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/companycredits
Sorry, didn't have time to find a Christian site with this info... so the atheist one will have to do. Check on Walter Ruloff on your own, though.
http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/2008/03/quacks-like-duck-conclusion.html
-
Sorry, didn't have time to find a Christian site with this info... so the atheist one will have to do. Check on Walter Ruloff on your own, though.
http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/2008/03/quacks-like-duck-conclusion.html
The atheist site is fine. Thanks for looking this up! I'll check it out.
-
Sorry, didn't have time to find a Christian site with this info... so the atheist one will have to do. Check on Walter Ruloff on your own, though.
http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/2008/03/quacks-like-duck-conclusion.html
If this is true, Deedee, then you are correct in that the film was not made by a secular Jew (Ben Stein), but by a Christian, Walter Ruloff. Point taken!