Ditto here. No response, more being afraid lto debate ike the article mentioned?
Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?
- Thread starter T'ai Chi
- Start date
Ditto here. No response, more being afraid lto debate ike the article mentioned?
Trigood
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 980
He's read Behe's and Dembski's books (which I haven't). I probably need that recent info too, although I practically majored in biochemistry in college 20 years ago.
I don't really think science will convince these people, among whom I include him, unfortunately. I think they want to find a "reason" to believe in God.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
All good.
Basically, someone debating against ID must not only demonstrate that evolution is sufficiently powerful enough of a theory to explain all the variation of life on Earth, but must also explain how ID is an attack on real science and threatens critical thinking skills.
A tough job. I wonder if Dr. A., and his ilk, are strong enough to handle it?
Trigood
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 980
I think you make some valid points, especially the emphasized one. Thank you.
I believe science and religion can co-exist, but ID is religion trying to co-opt science, not co-exist with it.
My brother tries to draw a sharp-line division between creationism and ID. I don't really see it, but I must admit I am not all that well-read on it. On the other hand, I still see ID as basically an attempt to prove God exists. Whereas Creationism is saying, "God exists, let's prove it," ID is saying, "Let's prove God exists." Not much difference in my mind.
Religion can only co-exist with ignorance. Only so far as ignorance is not extinguished by science can religion live along side.
ID is creationism in a suit. Bring up a creationist document and do a global search and replace, substituting 'an intelligence' for 'god' and you have an ID document. In fact, that is exactly how many of the ID documents were created. We have the before and after versions to prove it (see the Dover trial transcripts for more on that).
ID is creationism in a suit. Bring up a creationist document and do a global search and replace, substituting 'an intelligence' for 'god' and you have an ID document. In fact, that is exactly how many of the ID documents were created. We have the before and after versions to prove it (see the Dover trial transcripts for more on that).
MaryThierry
New Blood
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2
From my own experience with SMU professors, I find it very difficult to believe that their reaction has anything to do with a lack of willingness to debate.
Those folks were always up for a good argument, and when I managed to score against one, it usually had a positive effect on my grades. They seem to enjoy fostering independent thinking in their students - fancy a trait like that, in college professors!
Those folks were always up for a good argument, and when I managed to score against one, it usually had a positive effect on my grades. They seem to enjoy fostering independent thinking in their students - fancy a trait like that, in college professors!
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,592
Civilized Worm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,718
When you can't talk about the actual article, talk about the person who posted a link to the article, or even things like silly English stuff, nitpicking about what that person typed in a title.
Seems to be proper skepticism soi far.
I already gave you your bloody answer: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/
You know as bad as the DI are, at least they're comfortable admitting their position, unlike T'ai here.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
When you can't talk about the actual article, talk about the person who posted a link to the article, or even things like silly English stuff, nitpicking about what that person typed in a title.
Seems to be proper skepticism soi far.
Since you almost never respond to the critiques of the articles and never seem to answer the question asked, it would seem that questioning your motives is important.
And when some one did answer your silly topics, as in your mathematician disagreeing with evolution, not only do you ignore the critiques of the original article but you make some other really foolish statements like, "why don't you get that published". I am very willing to read your silly article and critique it, but are you capable or willing to answer the questions people ask.
there have been critiques of it in this thread.
You are a poseur Tai, you are not here to debate the issue, you are just a troll and probably a snot to boot. You most likely gets some sense of glee by pretrending to address the weak points of evolution.
So I will offer a critique and you will ignore it. because you are a coward who can't even defend your thoughts and concepts.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
So here you go Tai
Some interesting articles especialy the third one.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/vacuity_of_id_s_2.html
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/mar/24/smu-science-departments-opposing-intelligent-desig/
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/search/label/civil rights
^This is the one, read it here, the DI called the cops on people trying to post flyers about thier alleged conference.
Talk about censorship. this blog is at least as reliable as the DI.
Gee, the Christian legal Society sponsors an event about biology.
And some anthroplogists complain about snake oil peddlars trying to fleece people.
You are a total *****, Tai, people debate ID all the time, every where, there is no censorship
Just people doing what they do. If i tried to have a psychic fair at my local university, it would get challenged. And on the basis that it is not scientific. Not on the basis that they were afriad to debate the psychics.
Whoopee, they get three articles published ten years ago and they have science.
You would also get a "D" in freshman writing for not using research articles that are from the last three years.
So some ID guy has someone complain about a conference they have at a university and suddenly "they are afraid of us." That is a far strech and shows how desperate and stupid they are.
What it says about you is priceless.
Go look at what Fred Phelps is doing. But you want to feel like some one is supressing your right to be a *****, no one is. Just supressing your right to call it science!
Some interesting articles especialy the third one.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/vacuity_of_id_s_2.html
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/mar/24/smu-science-departments-opposing-intelligent-desig/
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/search/label/civil rights
^This is the one, read it here, the DI called the cops on people trying to post flyers about thier alleged conference.
Talk about censorship. this blog is at least as reliable as the DI.
Gee, the Christian legal Society sponsors an event about biology.
And some anthroplogists complain about snake oil peddlars trying to fleece people.
You are a total *****, Tai, people debate ID all the time, every where, there is no censorship
Just people doing what they do. If i tried to have a psychic fair at my local university, it would get challenged. And on the basis that it is not scientific. Not on the basis that they were afriad to debate the psychics.
Whoopee, they get three articles published ten years ago and they have science.
You would also get a "D" in freshman writing for not using research articles that are from the last three years.
So some ID guy has someone complain about a conference they have at a university and suddenly "they are afraid of us." That is a far strech and shows how desperate and stupid they are.
What it says about you is priceless.
Go look at what Fred Phelps is doing. But you want to feel like some one is supressing your right to be a *****, no one is. Just supressing your right to call it science!
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Anyhow,
doesn't this totally invalidate the claim: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80990 ...I mean it's not the same organization--but I don't think "fear" is the problem. It's accidentally lending credence to a non-scientific notion that exploits fear to get sticking power in the brains of the "trusting" (but clueless).
[/url]
doesn't this totally invalidate the claim: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80990 ...I mean it's not the same organization--but I don't think "fear" is the problem. It's accidentally lending credence to a non-scientific notion that exploits fear to get sticking power in the brains of the "trusting" (but clueless).
[/url]
Especially when the creationists' political lobbying is based on a slogan "teach the controversy." Agreeing to a debate makes it seem like there is a real controversy. After all, if creationism is worth the time and effort of someone of Dawkins' stature, and packs a lecture hall or debate theatre, then, uninformed people will reason, isn't is worth "our children" learning about it?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Behe and Dumbski are not sources for an update on genetic science.
If your brother is a physician, you might mention to him the vast majority of medical discoveries in the last decade have all been based on genetic science. Without the basic theory of evolution, biology research would still be in the trial and error discovery phase. It isn't. Biology research is in the design the drug you specifically need phase and it all rests on the genetic science platform of evolution theory.
Porterboy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 446
It actually makes sense from a theological point of view that Evolution is real. A hundred years ago people would have said that was impossible, but think about it: If God created the universe then why wouldn't He simply let it develop in its own way without interference and engineering? This includes the development of life on Earth. It's the ultimate act of nurturing love to allow His creation its own independant existance to change and grow in its own way.
Lothian
should be banned
Not afraid, resigned.
If you want a debate you would have no problem having one here. People have tried to engage you in a debate with no success.
Posting links and commenting on how “interesting” they are appears to be the limit of your 'debating.'
Consider your full contribution to this debate so far.
A mixture of links, questions and whinges. Nowhere do we see from you a positive contribution to the debate. You don’t state your opinions you merely criticise.
Hang on that sounds familiar, which group has no theory of their own, spends all their time criticising other opinions and then by default concludes
Perhaps if you debated you would be treated with some respect, if however you act like an idiot don’t be surprised when you are treated like one.
Bob Klase
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,937
One answer would be that "Darwinists" aren't 'afraid' to debate anybody. It's just that virtually all the "Darwinists" are dead. A "Darwinist" would be someone who subscribes to "Darwinism"- the theory/s proposed by Darwin. Darwin has been dead for quite a while, but new data and evidence since his death has caused science/scientists to change his theories when the evidence showed him to be wrong (something that doesn't happen with creationism ID).
Second, the article is talking about a conference- not a debate.
You can find another "interesting" article here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...tories/032407dnmetsmuinteldesign.d1438e3.html
But the information in the OP linked article would certainly be sufficient for a few debating points of it's own:
There's a good point- scholars will present empirical data- so apparently it's not a debate. That raises a question- Why are the IDers afraid to present evidence and empirical data?
If Behe had his way (see transcripts of the Dover trial), the definition of science would include astrologers (and likely faith healers), so they would be on the faculties of reputable universities too.
Perhaps we need some links to those peer-reviewed technical articles. If I remember correctly, DI made that same claim in Dover but had some difficultly finding articles that actually met the standards claimed.
It's astonishingly rare to be dealt a royal spade flush in poker- 2,598,960 to 1. Not as high as trillions of trillions, etc since since there are only 2,598,960 possible combinations of 5 cards, there's only a one in 2,598,960 chance of any one of those combinations being dealt. But when you deal 5 cards there's a 100% chance that one of those hands will be dealt.
I'm guessing that there are trillions trillions of possible working protein sequences that could exist. The odds of any specific one of the happening may be very small but the odds some of them occurring are much, much greater than the odds of a specific one occurring.
And if DI feels it has a duty to prove that ID is science (and apparently it does), why not gather empirical data and present a scientific theory rather than try to change the definition of "scientific"? Instead, they just want to debate.
DI claims they are "afraid"- much like many of DI's claims, it's a false premise used as ammunition for a loaded question.
Second, the article is talking about a conference- not a debate.
You can find another "interesting" article here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...tories/032407dnmetsmuinteldesign.d1438e3.html
But the information in the OP linked article would certainly be sufficient for a few debating points of it's own:
There's a good point- scholars will present empirical data- so apparently it's not a debate. That raises a question- Why are the IDers afraid to present evidence and empirical data?
If Behe had his way (see transcripts of the Dover trial), the definition of science would include astrologers (and likely faith healers), so they would be on the faculties of reputable universities too.
Perhaps we need some links to those peer-reviewed technical articles. If I remember correctly, DI made that same claim in Dover but had some difficultly finding articles that actually met the standards claimed.
It's astonishingly rare to be dealt a royal spade flush in poker- 2,598,960 to 1. Not as high as trillions of trillions, etc since since there are only 2,598,960 possible combinations of 5 cards, there's only a one in 2,598,960 chance of any one of those combinations being dealt. But when you deal 5 cards there's a 100% chance that one of those hands will be dealt.
I'm guessing that there are trillions trillions of possible working protein sequences that could exist. The odds of any specific one of the happening may be very small but the odds some of them occurring are much, much greater than the odds of a specific one occurring.
And if DI feels it has a duty to prove that ID is science (and apparently it does), why not gather empirical data and present a scientific theory rather than try to change the definition of "scientific"? Instead, they just want to debate.
DI claims they are "afraid"- much like many of DI's claims, it's a false premise used as ammunition for a loaded question.
Last edited:
Yes it must be said that the main purpose of the church is to gather money and with it, power. BUT, after debating with faithers for some time now, they [meaning the mass followers] really do fail to grasp certain scientific ideas [due to much mis-informing by their "betters" in black dresses]. This is where the idea of the "Brights" has come from and so I think it is important to try to represent science to everyone, as it affects them; in their own terms. Otherwise people feel alienated [scientists included!].
Griff...
Griff...