Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by jaywill
Mind you propoganda can be true or false.

I cannot seriously discuss this with you now because of time limitations of the public library's PC.

Maybe sometime next week.

Originally posted by jaywill
I cannot seriously discuss this with you now because of time limitations of the public library's PC.

Maybe sometime next week.

You do not need a computer to talk to yourself.

Originally posted by jaywill
Mind you propoganda can be true or false.

Generally propaganda is referred to when you are accusing someone of either lying purposely or lying by omission. This is particularly what I object to.

You essentially are establishing the usual persecution argument that creationists and ID proponents trot out without any real evidence for it.

Originally posted by timebombted
Bump for KJ to post his detailed explanation (which he's promised) regarding this previous statement:

"I have the same evidence for design as you do for evolution"
(KJ Pg28)

Have not forgotten you, just a little tied up.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Have not forgotten you, just a little tied up.
Kelly

All good, looking forward to it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Generally propaganda is referred to when you are accusing someone of either lying purposely or lying by omission. This is particularly what I object to.

You essentially are establishing the usual persecution argument that creationists and ID proponents trot out without any real evidence for it.

If I do offer evidence of unfair prejudice on Evo's side you dodge it by saying that such a person doesn't speak for all science.

Convenient.

Originally posted by jaywill
If I do offer evidence of unfair prejudice on Evo's side you dodge it by saying that such a person doesn't speak for all science.

Convenient.

Ummm.. no. You didn't offer evidence of unfair prejudice.

Also, when I said that it wasn't a "dodge" at all - please make your argument as to how it was a dodge. You simply stating that it was a dodge doesn't count.

You make a reference as to something Richard Dawkins said - that isn't evidence of a conspiracy of persecution of ID. It's just something Richard Dawkins said.

You are making a claim that the scientific community is dismissing ID without reason. You have to establish:

1. That a significant amount of the scientific community is dismissing ID.

AND

2. That they are doing so arbitrarily without reason.

Now, I believe that the majority of the scientific community does dismiss ID due to the reason that it isn't science - I agree with that at this point.

I do not believe they are doing so without reason though.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Ummm.. no. You didn't offer evidence of unfair prejudice.

Also, when I said that it wasn't a "dodge" at all - please make your argument as to how it was a dodge. You simply stating that it was a dodge doesn't count.

You make a reference as to something Richard Dawkins said - that isn't evidence of a conspiracy of persecution of ID. It's just somet e with that at this point.

I do not believe they are doing so without reason though.

========================================
Ummm.. no. You didn't offer evidence of unfair prejudice.
=========================================

Well, for one if Biology, according to Dawkin's definition, is the study of things which only have an appearance of design, then any scientist who decides to further explore if design REALLY is behind these life systems - is not really practicing biology.

By definition, his approach is unfair.

=======================================
Also, when I said that it wasn't a "dodge" at all - please make your argument as to how it was a dodge. You simply stating that it was a dodge doesn't count.
=======================================

Okay, let's say you didn't dodge.

Point being Dawkin's definition is monsterously prejudicial.

====================================
You make a reference as to something Richard Dawkins said - that isn't evidence of a conspiracy of persecution of ID. It's just something Richard Dawkins said.
=========================================

Well, jury rigging the definition of Biology as to exclude serious considerations of Intelligent Design is not fair, IMO.

It is question begging. His definition assures that no serious consideration of ID will take place in the field of Biology.

If I scold him he won't listen. I'm suppose to be mentally ill or hopelessly ignorant because I question some things about Evolution Theory. So why don't you do it?

Other comments I'll address a bit latter.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
Ummm.. no. You didn't offer evidence of unfair prejudice.
=========================================

Well, for one if Biology, according to Dawkin's definition, is the study of things which only have an appearance of design, then any scientist who decides to further explore if design REALLY is behind the ...[text shortened]... on Theory. So why don't you do it?

Other comments I'll address a bit latter.[/b]

Well, for one if Biology, according to Dawkin's definition, is the study of things which only have an appearance of design, then any scientist who decides to further explore if design REALLY is behind these life systems - is not really practicing biology

I'm very skeptical that Dawkins defines biology specifically in that way. However, the scientific community doesn't do what Dawkins says - I think they use the official definition.

By definition, his approach is unfair.

Even assuming that this is his approach, this is one person and one person only. I also think there's a lot more to his view than you are letting on.

If I scold him he won't listen. I'm suppose to be mentally ill or hopelessly ignorant because I question some things about Evolution Theory. So why don't you do it?

What? I assume you're talking about the post by someone earlier that supposedly claimed that he spoke for all of science.

I pick my battles. For one, I don't have the time to search for a post that you only vaguely reference. I sometimes see posts that I partially disagree, but mostly agree - I will often not post in response to those especially if the thing I disagree with is minor.

I also sometimes just skim posts so I don't bother to post in response. Sometimes I don't have time and sometimes I know it's going to get into a discussion that I don't want to get into.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, for one if Biology, according to Dawkin's definition, is the study of things which only have an appearance of design, then any scientist who decides to further explore if design REALLY is behind these life systems - is not really practicing biology

I'm very skeptical that Dawkins defines biology specifically in that way. However, the scien sometimes I know it's going to get into a discussion that I don't want to get into.

I told you. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins is the source of the sentence. From the book I am reading it appears to be on page 1 and is this quotation:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."


Yes, I know. That is slightly different from what I wrote. But it is essentially the same in meaning.

Biology is the study of things which have an appearance of design, is, I believe, what I originally wrote.

Now no more complaining about vague references.

Originally posted by jaywill
I told you. [b]"The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins is the source of the sentence. From the book I am reading it appears to be on page 1 and is this quotation:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."


Yes, I know. That is slightly different from what I wrote. But it is ess ...[text shortened]... is, I believe, what I originally wrote.

Now no more complaining about vague references.[/b]

Yet again you misrepresent what I was refering to by "vague reference".

I thought you had referred to a post on this forum and that is what I thought you had vaguely referenced.

Are you reading "The Blind Watchmaker" or are you reading a book that is referring to it? It's not quite clear from your post.

Of course, that doesn't really change much as to what I posted, but thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by timebombted
All good, looking forward to it.

started thread in science area.
Kelly