On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Brian Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Nov 20, 2008, at 9:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> -----Original message----- >>> From: "mex sara" [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> what is wrong with chaos and/or the origin of life is no ones >>>> fault but an excellent accident >>> >>> I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first part of that >>> sentence. As to the last, you have no proof that the origin of >>> life was accidental. So, why should you stifle research that >>> presumes there is a better explanation and attempts to find it? >> >> I believe she is asking why life could not have begun with the >> chaotic chemical reactions taking place in Earth's early oceans and >> atmosphere. That could have been the design if you are inclined to >> believe in ID. > > You need to see the movie. Several of the microbiologists adamantly > opposed to ID aggressively state as fact that life evolved from the > "primordial soup," presumably by chance. They don't know that and > neither do you.
Also pointed out in those links you refuse to follow, those researchers were lied to about what the movie was to be about then there comments were edited and taken out of context specifically to make them look like they were saying the exact opposite of what they actually said. Did you read Richard Dawkins's response to the use of his interview in the film? >> This is the entire problem with ID - there is no research. > > As noted in "Expelled," the Darwinists have a lot to do with that. > >> There are >> not testable arguments being made. > > Not yet, anyway. > > But the Darwinists don't have any testable arguments regarding the > origin of life either. Does that mean we should exclude that theory > from the classroom, too? At least when it comes to the origin of > species or the origin of life. > >> It is the proposition that you must >> accept it on faith. There's that nasty word again, faith. This is why >> it does not belong in schools or in science classes. > > There's that fear of a deity clouding your reasoning again. It > prevents you from accepting that faith and science can be > complimentary, and not mutually exclusive as is currently taught in > schools. Do you bother to read for understanding what people write? I've stated more than once, and even in the message to which this reply was in response to that I believe that ID (or God if you prefer) and evolution are not mutually exclusive and yet you claim that I have a fear of a deity. Even though I have clearly stated that they can be complimentary you are claiming that my claims are the exact opposite. My statement is that faith based teachings do not belong in schools. That is what churches are for. Schools should teach science not faith based beliefs. That is why we have a separation of church and state. >>>> btw darwins theory relates to the origin of species not the >>>> origin of life which as far a i remember he doesn't even >>>> speculate upon >>> >>> It is my understanding that ID attempts to find the origin of >>> life. Why can't scientists look to answer that question? >> >> Scientists are looking to answer that question every day. > > While stifling a competing point of view. OK with you, not OK with me. > >> >>>> do you remember when the theory of relativity proved god as if >>>> things were relative there must be an absolute ... ignoring >>>> that the absolute could be any thing etc >>> >>> Say, didn't that guy that came up with the theory of relativity >>> believe in a so-called "Prime Mover?" >>> >>> Is there an "omnipotent being" or "guiding principle" nudging >>> things along? Some scientists think maybe so. Should they be >>> ostracized from the science and research community for asking >>> those questions? >> >> It has been said before by me and others - ID and scientific >> explanations for how we came to be do not have to be mutually >> exclusive. It is the dogmatics who believe science is out to >> "destroy God". > > As you can tell, I agree with that sentiment, but I don't see it as > a one-way street. Take a look at "Expelled." The opposite is true as > well. > >> it was also pointed out in one of the links you pointedly refused >> to follow that the claims movie the movie makes about people who >> were "ostracized" or "punished for their beliefs" were true. Those >> were blatant lies and distortions of the facts to further the >> agenda of the folks making the movie. > > Sorry, but I don't take reading assignments from you or anyone else > on this list. Not enough time in the day for that. As I stated > previously, I am certain there are plenty of sites that attack the > movie, just as Stein predicted. > > Perhaps you can tell me of one major university where ID is openly > and freely discussed. Follow the links and you'll find the answers to that question. It specifically talks about one of those poor persecuted teachers who is still openly teaching ID in her classes. They aren't reading assignments, they are refutations to your claims and arguments. If you choose not to read them then there can be no possible intelligent discussion of the subject, just a rehash of one's one point of view over and over. It seems to me that you want to give an "assignment" to your debate opponents here to see a movie you recommend. -- Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
