Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

brendave wrote:

Can I say ID through evolution?  Let the posts spread.

I have no problem with that. More plausible than the ID theories res has been spitting out. At least it doesn't lay waste to three fields of science.

Like it or not there are qualified scientists in those fields who see a young earth with intelligent design behind it. They may not have the popular view, but they are qualified.

Yes, Joanathan Wells has a PhD. What you say? He is intellectually dishonest and a piece of paper does not a qualified scientist make? Aw.

From Jonathan Alter's article Monkey See, Monkey Do appearing in Newsweek's August 10 issue, the following quote is the article's lead:

A teacher in Kansas, where war over Darwin in the schools is still raging, calls the theory of intelligent design, "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

The article is a good read. For more of what the 'fundamentalists' are up to check it out here: Monkey See, Monkey Do]

NAG wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

I have no problem with that. More plausible than the ID theories res has been spitting out. At least it doesn't lay waste to three fields of science.

Like it or not there are qualified scientists in those fields who see a young earth with intelligent design behind it. They may not have the popular view, but they are qualified.

Yes, Joanathan Wells has a PhD. What you say? He is intellectually dishonest and a piece of paper does not a qualified scientist make? Aw.

I've never heard of Joanathan Wells.

NAG wrote:

So supply me a name of one of these so called credible scientists. Res, it is the same thing every time. You type stuff without saying a thing. Of course, intellectually dishonest people tend to support each other so I was only expecting such from you.

I've supplied names time and time and time again.
I'll get you another list if you want one.

I already did once in this thread - the chemist, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry and has several patents (for neat stuff too, like the hydrogen-oxygen compound that actually becomes less dense at it reaches about 0.4 Centigrade - dihydrogem-monoxide I think he calls it;))

Hank Rearden wrote:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"

Ouch. St Augustine, no less

user wrote:

Spammer.

At least if you'd posted in the "Peak Oil" thread, you might have made a miniscule bit of sense.

F. O.!

This whole thread doesn't make sense.

Well this thread doesn't make any sense anyhow. So much maneuvering it is funny to think I might actually get someone's honest opinion.

resedit wrote:

I will provide a list of ID scientists - I just haven't done so yet.

resedit wrote:

I've supplied names time and time and time again.
I'll get you another list if you want one.

resedit wrote:

I will provide a list of ID scientists - I just haven't done so yet.

The thing is, as far as I'm (and NAG are?) concerned 'ID scientist' is an oxymoron.
[I won't even bother to make the joke involved.]

mo' ron wrote:

Why would anyone want a list of ID scientist?

If I got a list of non-ID scientist, would that do any good?

Because I said they exist and someone asked for them.
I haven't started to compile the list yet, but it will come. I plan to use several Ph.D.'s that are in the fields of chemistry, biology, and geology. Those seem to be the fields most related to evolution.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm sure Hank will be happy to tell you how little we should be impressed by such a list.

Here's the way it went down.

I stated like it or not - there are qualified scientists in those fields who are in fact Intelligen Design.

NAG asked for a list. I stated I had provided them before, and would be willing to do so if asked again. NAG said please do. So I will.

I don't care wether it impresses you or not. That's why I haven't started yet - it really isn't that crucial to a point, other than that yes - qualified scientists in those fields do exist who are Intelligent Design supporters.

The request for them is why I am providing them, it isn't that far back in the thread if you want to read instead of just posing comments about being impressed or not. Apparently some people think they don't exist, and that is a myth worth debunking.

NAG wrote:

Still waiting.

Ya know res....I have a tremendous amount of respect for you.
You're passionate about your beliefs, you're articulate and you fight fair (no small feat in this place).
On this issue though you're trying to play it both ways and you're outmatched.
You want to argue the scientific merits of ID and at the same time claim it's a philosophical issue.
You've said for several pages you'd compile a list of ID scientists which if your arguments are to be believed you should have those within easy reach. (I don't care anyway it is a faith issue).
Any scientific argument for ID requires a suspension of disbelief.
I've heard it said that there's more scientific evidence to support evolution than there is to support the notion that the earth goes around the sun. I don't know if that's true but evolution just makes sense. No, not in the sense that is explains why we're here. If anybody had that answer there would be no MiniThink.
Imagine that!