What PBS doesn't want you to see

[PhineasJWhoopee]

And which specific creationist principles did they apply to their science?

God's word furnishes scientists with an interperative framework to view the world. Basic to this framework are three Biblical presuppositions without which science would be impossible:

1. There is an oreder in creation.
2. There is a cause, or reasonable explanation, for every effect, or event, in creation.
3. There is something real to be discovered and understood about creation.

God has chosen to leave it to man to investigate the day-to-day process that that define the operation of the world.

 

[Nik]

What most people believe isn't necessarily a good criterion for determining truth.

Plently of evolutionists believe that there is a common ancestor, so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Is theistic evolution possible? I suppose although I don't think the evidence supports it. I don't recall saying that evolution trumped God's existance.

Okay, fair enough. What does the evidence actually support?

What evidence do you have of an intelligent design?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Was Charles Darwin a Christian though? I thought Darwin rejected the idea of Jesus dying for our sins. Certainly, he shared Christian moral values. (Although, many Christians seem to be of the opinion that people can't have such moral values unless they are Christians.)

Trained as a doctor but could not take the operating theatre and then studied as a divinity student. Got invited on the H.M.S. Beagle's world round voyage for dinner conversation. Wrote about his religious beliefs in later life.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Without looking at the document, I'm going to guess,

I addressed your point. Rather than guessing, why not look at the document?

For the time it took you to post your last note, you could have quickly scanned it.

 

[alkemyst]

What most people believe isn't necessarily a good criterion for determining truth.

Plently of evolutionists believe that there is a common ancestor, so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Is theistic evolution possible? I suppose although I don't think the evidence supports it. I don't recall saying that evolution trumped God's existance.

Common ancestor vs single cell is not the same thing. Also common ancestor is a lot different than saying man came from a spider monkey.

Did you ever study science? As a non-religious person, I did take bible courses to understand better.

I will say in speaking with many religious people especially those educated at missionary type schools...there is a lot of brainwashing that goes on and they don't even realize it. Fuck in some churches they will tell you who God wants you to vote for.

I don't know what you mean by theistic evolution...however, many Evolutionists do believe in God. They also believe God would have made things to adapt/evolve rather that die out.

Also saying one does not buy into the Bible is not saying they don't believe in God either.

Facts are from Egyptology to Muslim/Judaism/many other world religions to Christianity there is a very common theme of a Father sending his son to earth either happening or will be.

The one thing that stops me dead in my tracks saying Christianity is 100% infallable is the lie they created in their holidays that so many still deny happened. Adding in that your King was ordaned by God equally killed the story for me.

 

[Nik]

God's word furnishes scientists with an interperative framework to view the world.

How do you know that? Where does the bible explain this?

Basic to this framework are three Biblical presuppositions without which science would be impossible:

1. There is an oreder in creation.
2. There is a cause, or reasonable explanation, for every effect, or event, in creation.
3. There is something real to be discovered and understood about creation.

Science is the study of things observable, measurable, and repeatable. How does your "framework" fit into science at all? God isn't observable, measurable, or repeatable. Neither is creation.

God has chosen to leave it to man to investigate the day-to-day process that that define the operation of the world.

How do you know that? Why would he do that?

 

[hans030390]

What most people believe isn't necessarily a good criterion for determining truth.

As of 2005, the majority of the people on this planet believe in some sort of religious belief. Over half the population is reported to follow either Christianity or Islam. Now, I understand what you're trying to say, but I'd be very careful choosing your words...

I don't follow majorities. Rather, I follow where my reasoning, research, and evidence takes me. I used to be in the same boat as you, and creationism is not what I've stuck with...

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Okay, fair enough. What does the evidence actually support?

What evidence do you have of an intelligent design?

If you are seriously interested in the topic, there's a ton of information available.

Would you like me to point you to some resources?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

As of 2005, the majority of the people on this planet believe in some sort of religious belief. Over half the population is reported to follow either Christianity or Islam. Now, I understand what you're trying to say, but I'd be very careful choosing your words...

I don't follow majorities. Rather, I follow where my reasoning, research, and evidence takes me. I used to be in the same boat as you, and creationism is not what I've stuck with...

What caused you to change your opinion?

 

[Zenmervolt]

I addressed your point.

No, you did not. You have thusfar thoroughly failed to address my point that the only reason the DI exists is to provide propaganda for the ID movement. It's not an objective source and, as such, no material provided can be considered reliable. You have been completely silent on this point, though you have made much noise while very carefully dancing around it without actually touching on it.

Rather than guessing, why not look at the document?

Because when I post first and am proven correct after I scan the document, it's that much sweeter.

For the time it took you to post your last note, you could have quickly scanned it.

See previous rationale.

ZV

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

No, you did not. You have thusfar thoroughly failed to address my point that the only reason the DI exists is to provide propaganda for the ID movement. It's not an objective source and, as such, no material provided can be considered reliable. You have been completely silent on this point, though you have made much noise while very carefully dancing around it without actually touching on it.

Because when I post first and am proven correct after I scan the document, it's that much sweeter.

See previous rationale.

ZV

I don't feel any need to address your assumptions and guesses.

 

[Zenmervolt]

God's word furnishes scientists with an interpretative framework to view the world. Basic to this framework are three Biblical presuppositions without which science would be impossible:

1. There is an order in creation.
2. There is a cause, or reasonable explanation, for every effect, or event, in creation.
3. There is something real to be discovered and understood about creation.

God has chosen to leave it to man to investigate the day-to-day process that that define the operation of the world.

The ideas of order in creation, causality, and discoverability pre-date both Christianity and Judaism. To suggest that such beliefs are biblically-based rather than experientially self-evident is to be ignorant of the great many non-biblical societies which were predicated on these same principles (notably Egyptian and Greco-Roman societies).

ZV

 

[Nik]

If you are seriously interested in the topic, there's a ton of information available.

Would you like me to point you to some resources?

No, I want you to type out your answer. If you don't understand it enough to explain it to me, you shouldn't be participating in the conversation, like you said right?

 

[Malak]

Not even Catholics believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design. They accept that evolution is natural law, as it was defined by their Creator. They also no longer think that the Earth is only 4,000 years old or that Jesus rode a dinosaur to work.

Because catholics are experts on the history of life.

 

[El Guaraguao]

Phin, I came down from the heavens just to tell you to stop. For realz.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I don't feel any need to address your assumptions and guesses.

There is no guess about what the DI is. That's been established fact since the Wedge Document became public in 1998 and was reinforced during the Kitzmiller case. There is no room for argument of that fact among rational individuals.

As for my guesses about the article:

1) Evaluates textbooks based on a highly limited selection of cherry-picked items (usually things that have been addressed many times already such as the inclusion of Haeckel's drawings, the "Cambrian explosion", and the peppered moth photographs).

2) Has absurd requirements which result in artificially low ratings even when a particular item is handled in such a way as to admit the inconclusiveness of an early experiment or that an early theory has since been discredited.

3) Uses out-of-context quotes and deliberate omissions in many cases to intentionally misrepresent the actual reading of the section of the textbook in question.

4) Assumes without evidence that its own position is flawless and fully conclusive, generally citing biased works by persons with limited (if any) scientific background.

1) Check. Spot on the money. It focuses on very early experiments that have been addressed and readdressed many times over.

2) Check. A rating of "C-" is given despite the information including a full caveat about the experiment having been discredited by later evaluation simply because the caveat is given after talking about the experiment rather than before.

3) Check. The provided quotes from the textbooks are uniformly short, often not even comprising full sentences, let alone proper quotations of entire paragraphs which would permit an honest evaluation of the tone of the textbook.

4) Check. Includes citations of such scientific paragons as "Time" magazine, and the quotations selected from reputable sources are chopped and intentionally misrepresented. Evidence counter to their claims is ignored.

Looks to me more like you chose not to address my "guesses" because they turned out to be uncomfortably accurate.

ZV

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The ideas of order in creation, causality, and discoverability pre-date both Christianity and Judaism. To suggest that such beliefs are biblically-based rather than experientially self-evident is to be ignorant of the great many non-biblical societies which were predicated on these same principles (notably Egyptian and Greco-Roman societies).

ZV

Scientific methodology was not a developed concept in ancient Egypt nor in Greco-Roman socities.

 

[IronWing]

Because catholics are experts on the history of life.

You really ought to start a thread explaining your hatred of Catholics. Did a priest touch your peepee?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Scientific methodology was not a developed concept in ancient Egypt nor in Greco-Roman socities.

Really, so the pyramids and all those Greco-Roman buildings just appeared out of thin air then? And Aristotle just got randomly lucky when he provided the basis for modern scientific inquiry?

At this point it's quite clear that whoever your history teachers were, they were severely deficient.

ZV

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

No, I want you to type out your answer. If you don't understand it enough to explain it to me, you shouldn't be participating in the conversation, like you said right?

I've given lengthy explanations of the scientific evidence for ID in previous posts and I all I get back in return from you is name calling, insults, and links. I suggest that you go back and read previous threads or do you own research.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

OP, just stop it.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Really, so the pyramids and all those Greco-Roman buildings just appeared out of thin air then? And Aristotle just got randomly lucky when he provided the basis for modern scientific inquiry?

At this point it's quite clear that whoever your history teachers were, they were severely deficient.

ZV

I'll ignore the insult and stay on point.

The construction of pyramids and buildings doesn't mean that the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans had well developed scientific methodologies.

 

[Kirby]

I'll ignore the insult and stay on point.

The construction of pyramids and buildings doesn't mean that the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans had well developed scientific methodologies.

lolwat

 

[Nik]

I've given lengthy explanations of the scientific evidence for ID in previous posts and I all I get back in return from you is name calling, insults, and links. I suggest that you go back and read previous threads or do you own research.

I'm playing by your rules. I've been respectful, I've played your game and now you refuse to play.

Typical. :thumbsdown:

 

[Nik]

I'll ignore the insult and stay on point.

The construction of pyramids and buildings doesn't mean that the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans had well developed scientific methodologies.

There's nothing but conjecture with regard to how the Egyptians built them. That's one of the reasons they're one of the great wonders of the world. There is absolutely nothing documented. The only theories we have are developed from the only evidence we have, which is the construction of the pyramids themselves.