Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[Bradskii]

I like this sentence:

Which again doesn't reject science. And yeah, it's a flexible term. We can discuss the implications of that if you'd like.

 

[Speedwell]

What I believe isn't the real issue I'm complaining about.

It's when I espouse something someone has never heard before, then take flak for "making it up," when, in reality, it's basic doctrine.

I think those are called "ad hominems," and some are trigger happy to employ them.

Be fair, AV. Your doctrine is somewhat obscure, even by Protestant standards--you shouldn't be surprised if even some Christians aren't aware of all of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen even scholarly people here set the scientific method aside to ridicule the Bible.

They'll preach the scientific method ... until someone brings up something from the Bible ... like basic doctrine ... and there goes the SM out the window.

Really? I sincerely doubt it. Now one can use the scientific method quite easily to show that your beliefs are false. But refuting a literal interpretation of Genesis does not refute Christianity. Genesis can work as a morality tale. It cannot work as either science or history.

 

[Bradskii]

It's when I espouse something someone has never heard before, then take flak for "making it up," when, in reality, it's basic doctrine.

Which yet again has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. But I would certainly be very interested in what you have proposed that no-one has ever heard about. I've been around the block a few times and tend to think I'd heard it all. But over to you for an example...

 

[SelfSim]

What I believe isn't the real issue I'm complaining about.

It's when I espouse something someone has never heard before, then take flak for "making it up," when, in reality, it's basic doctrine.

I think those are called "ad hominems," and some are trigger happy to employ them.

You are not the sum total of your beliefs .. unless you say you are .. in which case, take a look at what you say, about who you are!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why say that when it doesn't? There's so much in the bible that can be shown to be true. If you want to make a point you can do so without ridiculous exageration. It'll actually carry more weight.

"Miracles" to "magic."

"Child in the womb" to "fetus."

No exodus, no wilderness wanderings, no Abrahamic Covenant, no resurrection ... and I could go on and on and on.

 

[Bradskii]

"Miracles" to "magic."

"Child in the womb" to "fetus."

No exodus, no wilderness wanderings, no Abrahamic Covenant, no resurrection ... and I could go on and on and on.

Please don't...

 

[AV1611VET]

Which yet again has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. But I would certainly be very interested in what you have proposed that no-one has ever heard about. I've been around the block a few times and tend to think I'd heard it all. But over to you for an example...

Start here: Post 109

 

[AV1611VET]

Please don't...

Ashamed of that Arab phone, are you?

 

[renniks]

Which counters what renniks was saying:

No, it confirms it. Why are some Christians not supporting ID? Because it's not specifically a Christian belief.

 

[Bradskii]

Start here: Post 109

Mmm. I was expecting something with more meat (and a connection to your complaint about science denying the bible). I'm sure you have a reason for believeing what you posted. Maybe someone might take you up on it...

 

[renniks]

No, there ignorance or dishonesty can always be demonstrated. Creationists unfortunately won't let themselves understand how their heroes lied for them. They won't even let themselves understand the basics of science. If they did they could not support creationism without lying.

Are you up for it? Do you think that you could learn what the scientific method is and the concept of scientific evidence?

We do not even need to bring evolution into the discussion until you get the basics down.

I already know what the scientific method is. Quit talking down or get lost.

 

[Bradskii]

Ashamed of that Arab phone, are you?

I have no idea what that means...

 

[renniks]

No, they dont.

They may belive, but its based on faith, not science.

You love telling others why they believe what they do. You must be a little god who can read minds I guess.

 

[dlamberth]

No, it confirms it. Why are some Christians not supporting ID? Because it's not specifically a Christian belief.

Not all Christians believe in ID, that’s true. But of those who do, it’s only Christians. No one else.

 

[renniks]

Not all Christians believe in ID, that’s true. But of those who do, it’s only Christians. No one else.

Um ok? You are just plain wrong.
The mathematician David Berlinski, a secular Jew (and a Discovery Institute Fellow), has been an outspoken critic of Darwinian evolution and supporter of intelligent design. Leif Jensen, a secular Dane who dabbles in Hinduism has authored "Rethinking Darwinism: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design." And Lee Spetner, a Jew, has authored two books critical of Darwinian evolution and favorable toward intelligent design published by a specifically Jewish publisher (Judaica Press). Thomas Nagel, an avowed atheist, has recently launched an attack on the sufficiency of a materialist Darwinian conception of evolution and taken a surprisingly positive attitude toward the work of intelligent design theorists, despite the conservative religious ideology so many of them share.

 

[Bradskii]

Not all Christians believe in ID, that’s true. But of those who do, it’s only Christians. No one else.

Kinda gives the game away, doesn't it.

'Those of us who promote ID have no position as to who the designer is'.
'But...you're all Christians...'

crickets

 

[Speedwell]

No, it confirms it. Why are some Christians not supporting ID? Because it's not specifically a Christian belief.

Then what's the point of it? ID doesn't really square with anybody's origins doctrine, not YECs, mainline Protestants or traditional Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mmm. I was expecting something with more meat ...

You mean like ontological subordination or diabolical mimicry?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea what that means...

Arab Phone, Chinese Whispers, Telephone Game, Grapevine ... take your pick.