|
|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2016 16:32:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 16:36:21 GMT -5
Stephen Meyer does no even have a degree in biology.
His academic qualifications are in physics and earth science and his Ph.D. is in history and philosophy of science. (note: "philosophy of science" is NOT "biological science.") Now, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design (at least the terminology), nor have I ever heard of Stephen Meyer before. At this point in my life, if I was to go back to school for another degree, I'm thinking I would probably choose Philosophy of Science. I think there are way too many "scientists" these days who have no framework (and, sometimes, even less interest) in asking "What does this all mean?" Even within my area of expertise, I see so much bad science (really bad science) being promoted as "real science". Some of it defies even common sense, and (particularly when filtered through popular media) contributes to people's skepticism/disengagement where advances in real science are concerned. If I was setting the curriculum for science-based programs these days, I would set a requirement for a decently rigorous exploration of "What does it all mean?" "What are the strengths?" "What are the limitations?" "What are the implications?" "Are there ethical considerations?" etc... I think this kind of examination is sorely lacking in the world view of even some of the "top scientists" these days. I really like the principles of real science as articulated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the opening of his Cosmos series: 1) Test ideas by experiment and observation 2) Build on those ideas that pass the test 3) Reject the ones that fail 4) Follow the evidence where it leads 5) Question everything To me, points #4 and #5 (and even #3) are too often ignored, depending on the source of research funds. I think Ste Meyer would agree with much of what you shared. He has some short videos and some long. As a speaker I would rate him 9.8 , I don't always agree with what he says but he does make some interesting videos. Jmo |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 9, 2016 16:52:10 GMT -5
I will try to keep the secret science under the table. Shhhhhh! Don't tell anyone! Please correct me if I am missing the point are illusions , real or are they an illusion? I made the statement that some scientist think the illusion of free will is an illusion . Perhaps these scientists are only illusionary scientists?  ? From what I have read about empirical studies in neuroscience and cognitive psychology, they have measured brain activity in the brain, before we become self-aware that we “made a decision”. This suggests we don’t have free will, but rather “free will” is an illusion. A good summary of freewill, theological, scientific, and philosophical is at plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/The conclusion of some books I have read on this subject is; regardless if we do or don’t have freewill, we can only live and act as if we do have free will. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 9, 2016 17:47:47 GMT -5
I think people are just people, capable of the full range of human behavior, whether they wear the scientist hat or not. I would have been in Grade 3 or 4, when I was first introduced to Gregor Mendel's pea plant experiments. Then, some years later, there were the popular media reports that he had almost certainly fudged his results. Something really idealistic died inside me the day those reports surfaced. (In the years since then, I believe there have been studies supporting that Mendel's original assertions are indeed valid.) Marion Nestle, in the last year or so, has been keeping a tally of industry-funded nutrition studies with results favorable to the sponsor. I think the current score is in the neighborhood of 119/11. When I was doing research, there was one lab on campus where it was an open secret that the experimenters knew the results before they ran the experiments (i.e., they discarded the reps that didn't agree with what they were looking for). It happens. Realizing that it does is part of being a well-informed Homo sapiens (in Latin, meaning "wise person" (wtf?)). |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 9, 2016 19:14:06 GMT -5
Are you saying that evolution is guided ? Had you bothered to read about evolution, as it is really considered, in the link provided you would have discovered that evolution is guided by the ability to survive following a change than the ability to survive prior to the change. If it was a design how can you explain the fact that 99.9% of all species are extinct? Planned obsolescence, obviously. The iPhone is, according to some, representative of the pinnacle of a certain type of design. But if the iPhone was built by design, how can you explain the fact that every model prior to the iPhone 6 is well on its way to extinction? HA! Got you with THAT one! |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 19:25:45 GMT -5
Does GOD have a "conscience?" !!
Why would anyone with a "conscience," any sense of morality at all, -David or YOUR GOD, -take the life of the child begat by David & rather than taking the life of David who were the cause that child being born!
We need a conscience alright, but how can anyone believe that YOUR GOD was the model we should use?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 20:53:34 GMT -5
No, Charles Darwin was not Jewish.
"Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the Unive rsity of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3]
On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5]
By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6] from wiki He surrounded himself in a Jewish cultureHe even used a Yiddish insult toward the captain of
the Beagle on his expedition to Galap. IslandsA quick google of Darwins Jewishness is quite interesting. His wife was not Jewish , he had many children and after the sudden death of one daughter C. D . became understandably bitter about it? It was then that he became a atheist ? Sad story.... 
You haven't answered my other questions yet.
But I will try one more time.
Where in the world, where on the internet or any other reference in this wide, wide world, -do you glean your nuggets of disinformation?
Disinformation such as Darwin surrounding himself in a Jewish culture.
Disinformation such as "He even used a Yiddish insult toward the captain of the Beagle on his expedition to Galap(ago) Islands.
Of course his wife wasn't Jewish! Neither was he.
Just how do you "know" these things that simply aren't true.
Are you gleaning them from some Creationist site?
I have a brief autobiography of Darwin's right here in my own library and what you are saying is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 21:16:22 GMT -5
Many good resources for understanding. the ID
paradigm . Stephen Meyer explains it in several
videos ,
such as : Stephen Meyer and Darwins
Doubt. on the John Ankenberg show (pt.2) 28 min.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 22:05:17 GMT -5
He surrounded himself in a Jewish cultureHe even used a Yiddish insult toward the captain of
the Beagle on his expedition to Galap. IslandsA quick google of Darwins Jewishness is quite interesting. His wife was not Jewish , he had many children and after the sudden death of one daughter C. D . became understandably bitter about it? It was then that he became a atheist ? Sad story....
You haven't answered my other questions yet.
But I will try one more time.
Where in the world, where on the internet or any other reference in this wide, wide world, -do you glean your nuggets of disinformation?
Disinformation such as Darwin surrounding himself in a Jewish culture.
Disinformation such as "He even used a Yiddish insult toward the captain of the Beagle on his expedition to Galap(ago) Islands.
Of course his wife wasn't Jewish! Neither was he.
Just how do you "know" these things that simply aren't true.
Are you gleaning them from some Creationist site?
color="050a7a"]phy of [/font]Darwin's [/font][/font]right here in my own library and what you are saying is nonsense.[/b][/font][/quote][ Nonsense? Why would you say that kind word? Refer to an article published in Scientific American online Jan. 2013 issue : "Why was this Darwin different from all other Darwins " The Jewish community claimed him . Charles wrote:: This meshuggener ( re: Fitzroy)had a bed with only a wrong side because that is the side he always woke up on. Always looking for tsuris..... what a schmuck! Darwins original book was heavily edited to remove as much of his Yiddish vocabulary . I'd like to site more but alas history is covering it up |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 22:55:22 GMT -5
You have either the wrong magazine or the wrong date or the wrong article for this reference:
(Scientific American online Jan. 2013 issue : "Why was this Darwin different from all other Darwins ")
We have taken the Scientific American magazine for 50 years and your article isn't in it and I could not find it in Scientific American online.
Are you sure you didn't just pull it off one of those Creationists sites again?
That is why I say the material that you offer is "nonsense."
When you give some bona fide references maybe I will be able to make a difference diagnosis of your material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 23:07:08 GMT -5
You have either the wrong magazine or the wrong date or the wrong article for this reference:
(Scientific American online Jan. 2013 issue : "Why was this Darwin different from all other Darwins ")
We have taken the Scientific American magazine for 50 years and your article isn't in it and I could not find it in Scientific American online.
Are you sure you didn't just pull it off one of those Creationists sites again?
That is why I say the material that you offer is "nonsense."
When you give some bona fide references maybe I will be able to make a difference diagnosis of your material.
you mean this article?
www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-this-darwin-different-from-all-other-darwins/
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2016 23:15:00 GMT -5
Nonsense? Why would you say that kind word? Refer to an article published in Scientific American online Jan. 2013 issue : "Why was this Darwin different from all other Darwins " The Jewish community claimed him . Charles wrote:: This meshuggener ( re: Fitzroy)had a bed with only a wrong side because that is the side he always woke up on. Always looking for tsuris..... what a schmuck! Darwins original book was heavily edited to remove as much of his Yiddish vocabulary . I'd like to site more but alas history is covering it up I can't believe you didn't know the article you referenced was a satire. The article can be found here.One would think that the title alone would have been a clue. Since you seem to have a lot of trouble telling BS from truth, here is another article: www.tabletmag.com/scroll/121396/charles-darwin-was-a-bad-jewWhat the Jews think about this.Whether the pieces of text you find support your claim or not you really need to see if you are making yourself look a bit foolish by referencing a satire and trying to use it to support your claim. This is not the first time you have presented something as a reference that had either little to do with your premise or refuted what you claimed. Next you will be quoting The Onion to support your claim(s). |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 23:22:06 GMT -5
Many good resources for understanding. the ID paradigm . Stephen Meyer explains it in several videos , such as : Stephen Meyer and Darwins Doubt. on the John Ankenberg show (pt.2) 28 min.
In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.
Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
In his opinion, Judge Jones traced the history of the intelligent design movement to what he said were its roots in Christian fundamentalism. He seemed especially convinced by the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, that the authors of the "Pandas" textbook had removed the word "creationism" from an earlier draft and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.
"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 23:55:50 GMT -5
You have either the wrong magazine or the wrong date or the wrong article for this reference:
(Scientific American online Jan. 2013 issue : "Why was this Darwin different from all other Darwins ")
We have taken the Scientific American magazine for 50 years and your article isn't in it and I could not find it in Scientific American online.
Are you sure you didn't just pull it off one of those Creationists sites again?
That is why I say the material that you offer is "nonsense."
When you give some bona fide references maybe I will be able to make a difference diagnosis of your material.
you mean this article?
www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-this-darwin-different-from-all-other-darwins/
Thanks again.
Now I remember it, -with a smile!  |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 10, 2016 5:43:24 GMT -5
Good satire is funny stuff
I suppose " Origin of species " could be called
another Darwinian satire?
And Haekel's infamous fudging of embryonic charts?
Ya makes for good humor!
Why are people worried about those Turkish comic
books that depict Darwin as a Jew?
It makes me wonder how people interpret truth
and humor!
Oh the disadvantages of reading from unreliable
sources . OI it wasn't even funny but it might
Have some truth , somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 10, 2016 5:55:18 GMT -5
Many good resources for understanding. the ID paradigm . Stephen Meyer explains it in several videos , such as : Stephen Meyer and Darwins Doubt. on the John Ankenberg show (pt.2) 28 min.
In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design,
, adult or child," [/u]the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."[/b] [/quote][ If lD fails to meet the test of being a vehicle for establishing the truth of the matter, then even more so is evolution, which has falsified "evidence" , constantly disregarded opposing evidence. Failing to meet the most basic merit of observation of the most important events of the hypothesis . Can a better case for a satirical comic book be made? Hence we should also throw out the majority of the theory of evolution as an unintelligent and baseless sham. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 10, 2016 6:06:28 GMT -5
[quote source="/post/684137/thread" . I'd like to site more but alas history is covering it up I can't believe you didn't know the article you referenced was a satire. The article can be found here.One would think that the title alone would have been a clue. Since you seem to have a lot of trouble telling BS from truth, here is another article: www.tabletmag.com/scroll/121396/charles-darwin-was-a-bad-jewWhat the Jews think about this.Whether the pieces of text you find support your claim or not you really need to see if you are making yourself look a bit foolish by referencing a satire and trying to use it to support your claim. This is not the first time you have presented something as a reference that had either little to do with your premise or refuted what you claimed. Next you will be quoting The Onion to support your claim(s). [/quote][ I'm glad you got a chuckle , perhaps someone started this rumor and it perpetuated. There is evidence that many people have Jewish blood in them unaware . Who thinks satire is funny must appreciate the nature of the twisted view evident in the article. I will let that rest (maybe) ? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 10, 2016 6:52:23 GMT -5
[quote source="/post/684137/thread" . I'd like to site more but alas history is covering it up I can't believe you didn't know the article you referenced was a satire. The article can be found here.One would think that the title alone would have been a clue. Since you seem to have a lot of trouble telling BS from truth, here is another article: www.tabletmag.com/scroll/121396/charles-darwin-was-a-bad-jew[a href="http://www.jta.org/2013/01/11/neto do with your premise or refuted what you claimed. Next you will be quoting The Onion to support your claim(s). [[ ]I'm glad you got a chuckle , perhaps someone started this rumor and it perpetuated. There is evidence that many people have Jewish blood in them unaware . Who thinks satire is funny must appreciate the nature of the twisted view evident in the article. I will let that rest (maybe) ?[ Everywhere in science new evidence comes into play, does that new information cause the "old" to look quite silly, as you correctly analyzed. Someday Darwinism will find a new home in the satire files fictional literature? Personally I wonder why you fell so hard: Hook, line, and sinker. mercy! |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Feb 10, 2016 10:03:36 GMT -5
Nonsense? Why would you say that kind word? Refer to an article published in Scientific American online Jan. 2013 issue : "Why was this Darwin different from all other Darwins " The Jewish community claimed him . Charles wrote:: This meshuggener ( re: Fitzroy)had a bed with only a wrong side because that is the side he always woke up on. Always looking for tsuris..... what a schmuck! Darwins original book was heavily edited to remove as much of his Yiddish vocabulary . I'd like to site more but alas history is covering it up I can't believe you didn't know the article you referenced was a satire. The article can be found here.One would think that the title alone would have been a clue. Since you seem to have a lot of trouble telling BS from truth, here is another article: www.tabletmag.com/scroll/121396/charles-darwin-was-a-bad-jewWhat the Jews think about this.Whether the pieces of text you find support your claim or not you really need to see if you are making yourself look a bit foolish by referencing a satire and trying to use it to support your claim. This is not the first time you have presented something as a reference that had either little to do with your premise or refuted what you claimed. Next you will be quoting The Onion to support your claim(s). I was friends with the author of the Scientific American piece years ago. Steve is a very funny guy with a propensity for biting sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 10, 2016 10:30:01 GMT -5
I'm glad you got a chuckle , perhaps someone started this rumor and it perpetuated. There is evidence that many people have Jewish blood in them unaware . Who thinks satire is funny must appreciate the nature of the twisted view evident in the article. I will let that rest (maybe) ???? I had hoped that once it was pointed out that you were fooled by a piece of satire pointing out how absurd your claims of Darwin being Jewish were that you would have admitted your error but, again, I set my sights too high. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 10, 2016 21:19:11 GMT -5
Wow - You bit down hard on that!!!I can't believe you didn't know the article you referenced was a satire. The article can be found here.One would think that the title alone would have been a clue. Since you seem to have a lot of trouble telling BS from truth, here is another article: www.tabletmag.com/scroll/121396/charles-darwin-was-a-bad-jew[a href="http://www.jta.org/2013/01/11/neto do with your premise or refuted what you claimed. Next you will be quoting The Onion to support your claim(s). I'm glad you got a chuckle , perhaps someone started this rumor and it perpetuated. There is evidence that many people have Jewish blood in them unaware . Who thinks satire is funny must appreciate the nature of the twisted view evident in the article. I will let that rest (maybe) ?[ Everywhere in science new evidence comes into play, does that new information cause the "old" to look quite silly, as you correctly analyzed. Someday Darwinism will find a new home in the satire files fictional literature? Personally I wonder why you fell so hard: Hook, line, and sinker. mercy!
I suppose that someone like you who doesn't really understand how the scientific method is used to gather information and arrive at conclusions might arrive at your rather ignorant conclusion.
You see, your post indicates you simply don't know how science works!
PS:
Aren't YOU the one who fell hard: Hook, line, and sinker?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 10, 2016 22:34:57 GMT -5
Feb 10, 2016 4:55:18 GMT -6 Guest4 said:
[quote]the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."
If lD fails to meet the test of being a vehicle for establishing the truth of the matter, then even more so is evolution, which has falsified "evidence" constantly disregarded opposing evidence.
Failing to meet the most basic merit of observation of the most important events of the hypothesis .
Can a better case for a satirical comic book
be made?
Hence we should also throw out the majority of the theory of evolution as
an unintelligent and baseless sham.[/quote]
Perhaps when the proponents of ID (Intelligent Design ) can actually come up with verifiable scientific evidence rather than a religious argument based on the supposed writings of a "god," (especially the Christian god) -then perhaps they might have a leg on which to stand.
Perhaps you don't understand the principle on which the judge's decision was based.
The United State Constitution has a separation of church & state whereas laws aren't based on any religion.
If it did have such a preference, one has to ask the question which religion would it favor?
Suppose, -since it is in the news these days, -we take the example that the preference was the Islamic religion.
As a Christian would YOU be very happy with the Islamic views being taught in your child's school?
|
|
|
|
Post by Freemasonry on Feb 11, 2016 10:16:38 GMT -5
Is a Jewish establishment whose history, grades,
Official appointments, passwords, and explanations
are Jewish from beginning to end.
Charles Lyell was a Freemason .
Erasmus Darwin founded a Masonic lodge in England .
Charles Darwin (Erasmus grandson) was a Freemason
Hmmm. Denying evidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 11, 2016 12:10:15 GMT -5
Rabbi Isaac Wise is the source of the above
quote about freemasonry
David Dawneway sourced:
"The Mason theory of the origins of Life - the hidden link
Between : Darwin, Marx Nietzsche, Hitler "
I googled this illuminati , NWO literature and
found it to be somewhat over my scope of
comprehending , nevertheless it will be interesting
to see if it is what it claims to be. Hmmmm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 12:18:10 GMT -5
Is a Jewish establishment whose history, grades, Official appointments, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end. Charles Lyell was a Freemason . Erasmus Darwin founded a Masonic lodge in England . Charles Darwin (Erasmus grandson) was a Freemason Hmmm. Denying evidence? Holy Moses! The masons worked for free?  |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 11, 2016 12:54:01 GMT -5
Is a Jewish establishment whose history, grades, Official appointments, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end. Charles Lyell was a Freemason . Erasmus Darwin founded a Masonic lodge in England . Charles Darwin (Erasmus grandson) was a Freemason Hmmm. Denying evidence? Evidence of what? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 11, 2016 14:09:47 GMT -5
Hmmm
David Dawneway s analytical literature tying
all these Jewish leaders . It's quite interesting
evidence they have strong Jewish ties that
(shall I presume obvious) have quite effectively
been satirized and denied ancestry ?
There you go, let the readers decide!
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 11, 2016 14:28:19 GMT -5
Many Jews are quite supportive of the Hebrew account of creation.
Yet you have to search far and wide and not find few
that will consider ID frame :/theory
Yet some "claim" they are the same theory ?
|
|
?
