Intelligent design goes Ivy League: Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 04/11/2006

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(No he doesn't. I believe in God, and he's not describing me)

If he doesn't, then he just enjoys ridiculing others, in a most arrogant way. For the record, I'm not an IDer. I do believe in God and evolution, though to what degree, I am unsure. I think presenting ID as a science is dishonest. It is a philosophy. In this particular incident, science to dispute YEC is so strong that there should be no need to resort to the behavior that we have been discussing. I will be more courteous in the future with my posts. However, if one chooses to hurl insults, of such an unscientific nature, for the sole pleasure of contemptuous amusement, then one should be prepared for what may follow. That type of behavior adds nothing of value to these threads.

[KMJames]

Perhaps there are other kinds of revelations but the one I recieved did not provide proof I could share with others.

Then I suppose your testimony regarding the validity of the revelation could be offered as proof. After all, if "revelation" is not true it is "deception".

[Boiler Plate]

ToE can not be reproduced, unless you have unlimited funding and a few billion years.

The true adherents to ToE are unmoved by the lack of evidence in the fossil record, the statistical impossibility of ToE and the contradiction with the 2nd law thermodynamics (entropy) in regards to information systems.

So if you know of a test to disprove ToE that exists that can performed conclusively, I'd like to hear about it.

[AndrewC]

In real life, the kinds of arguments used to support evolution

My God, you're obsessed. The discussion is on science in general. The scientific method is tentative.

[js1138]

I am not so obsessed that I would dismember and misrepresent a quote.

[AndrewC]

I am not so obsessed that I would dismember and misrepresent a quote

Well congrats, but you still are obsessed.

[metmom]

First off, we don't bring up posts on other threads to accuse other posters.

Actually CTM was asked for evidence to support her statements about obb BY obb in post 195. Her providing them is not the same as thread hopping to accuse other posters. He asked for evidence about himself and she provided it. I don't see that that breaches any FR courtesy rules. JR has provided posting guidelines and she certainly did not break any of those and the rest is just courtesy that has been established as the site has gone along.

What she provided was not much different than directing some one to the posting history of a particular FReeper, which is there for all to see but since he asked for specifics, there's nothing wrong with her providing them. As a matter of fact, I've seen FReepers shredded recently for NOT providing posts to back up their statements with the not so subtle insinuations that the person is making them up and lying. Here's the dilemma: if she doesn't provide them, she leaves herself open to accusations of lying and slander; if she does, she's chastised for providing the information asked for.

So what's she to do?

[RunningWolf]

Here's the dilemma: if she doesn't provide them, she leaves herself open to accusations of lying and slander; if she does, she's chastised for providing the information asked for.

So what's she to do?

Well if she takes up the evo flag & joins the ping list, the rules don't apply anymore.

If she did do that, then in fact the contradictions can become so convoluted she could probably spend her whole time shredding 'creationists', attacking people that post Scripture, rarely if ever post any herself, and simultaneously pay (gape jawed) homage to the GM/sarc> have friendly chat-ups with evo posters who put up nasty sac-religious imagery, and still call herself a Christian.

However I think that spot might already be taken. And while I don't know the poster, I doubt that would be the kind of thing she went for anyway.

Wolf

[orionblamblam]

> So what's she to do?

She could have read things in their proper context. She saw a complaint about *her* as being a complaint about her *religion*. Specifically: "I seem to recall *some* religion or other had a minor provision that said that "bearing false witness" was a general no-no (it was probably in the small print, somewhere in a little-used Appendix at the back).... but I'm sure you'll get special dispensation."

Where do you see a slam of some religion in *that*? Only the completely sarcasm-impaired would miss the message.

[metmom]

And where do you see that, praytell? Post 195

This question is what I believe she was responding to when she provided the posts; she was answering the question you asked. Since the answer was not really specific about what *that* you were referring to, she cannot really be faulted for how she answered it. You could have specified instead of leaving the antecedent unclear.

Also, implying that she is a stalker because she provided information asked for is a false accusation. Has she been following you thread to thread harassing you? Has she been bringing up the same issue with you everytime she posts to you on those other threads? A quick perusal of her posting history for the last three weeks shows no other posts to you other than the ones on this thread. All she did is provide evidence as evolutionists like to demand, and when she did she was criticized and I think that that implication about her is out of line and uncalled for.

[metmom]

P.S. You're supposed to ping someone when you talk about them.

[orionblamblam]

You avoided answering the question. Nice dodge.

[metmom]

No dodge; your last comment was unclear as to whether you were asking me the same question or whether you were restating the comment you posted to her and making a comment on it.

Slam of religion from post 195: utter superstitious rubbish

[orionblamblam]

> Slam of religion from post 195: utter superstitious rubbish


Check out post 195 again: those owrds aren't in there.

Those words come from post 61, where they hearken back to posts 55 and 56, which make it perfectly clear that the "utter superstitious rubbish" was Creationism. So, once again, you assume that creationism = Your Religion.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I want you to know that I will never attack someone for posting scripture. I do, on occasion, disagree with someone's interpretation of scripture. I will not be ugly, or call names because I feel that is wrong. If I take issue with someone, it is usually for doing this very thing.

Yes, I do have friendly chats with some of the evo group. Some of them are very nice. I believe I have no chance of convincing anyone of anything if my purpose on these threads is to fire off the most creative insult. I have observed that many of the nasty remarks on these threads are two sided. I generally don't pile on to those posts when one is giving it as good as getting it. I do, however, find some to be unwarranted, such as the example that we are talking about. In it, I did my best to use that posters own remarks, as not to fall into the name calling game.

Here is where I stand on my beliefs regarding Christianity and evolution. I am a Christian. I am not a YEC. I do think it is possible that God could have created us that way. I also think it's possible that he could have taken longer. I think evolution does occur to a degree. I don't know what that degree is. I think God is glorious and great. I Love him with all my heart! He has blessed me and sustained me throughout my life. I will proclaim Him.

There have been two instances in which I have disagreed with a fellow Christian. Once was when one of them was insulting a fellow poster. I did not insult back. My post to him was a reminder that we represent our Lord on these threads. Sometimes one must take a stand, but insults, and derogatory behavior do not further a cause. The other was a disagreement over interpretation. That poster is entitled to his/her opinion, as am I. We will just have to disagree. Creation is not what salvation is based upon.

This is my feeling about scripture. Some evos do not give any authority to the Bible. If I post scripture for the sole purpose of condemning them, I have not acted in love. And, sense they may not give authority to the Bible, my post would have done little to change, and much to offend. An offended person is usually a closed minded one. I think it is far better to befriend, and gain respect so that one might be able to have a conversation in which the other is open minded enough to consider what is being said.

I really like Paul. I think he was one smart guy, with amazing conviction and faith. This is one of my favorite.

1 Corinthians 9
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.


If you would like to go back and reread any of my post you will find that I do ask questions of the evos, and I usually get polite, and thorough answers. I read them, and decide how and if it fits with creation. I generally do not post my opinion of this, unless someone asks. Sometimes, I don't know how it fits. I generally do not disagree with science because I do not know enough about it to, first know if I disagree, and second, make an effective argument if i did. I do disagree when there are posts that I perceive as blanket statements that God doesn't exist. This is philosophical, and can not be argued for, or against by science. You will find some interesting exchanges between me and other posters on this matter. I did not get on these threads to pick a fight. That is not productive in my view. You will find no post in which I proclaim evolution, in meaning anything other than change, to be true. I do think it may be possible that God did create us in this manner, just as it may be possible that we were created in the way a YEC would proclaim, or some other interpretation as well. Once again, I do not think it is part of God's plan of salvation. I am more interested in opening a fellow poster mind up to the possibility of God, so that they may seek him out on their own, then being right about the manner in which we were created.

Now Wolf, I can tell from your post that your faith is of great importance to you. I admire, and respect that. You and I may not agree on some things. That does not mean we are against each other, only that there are some things we don't see the same way. I'm not carrying an evo flag. I'm not carrying a "I'm right about creation flag" either. I am a Christian. I will always present myself as such. I will do my best to behave in such a manner. If I mess up, which we all do, then I am sorry. I ask God for forgiveness, and guidance. I make a point to pray, each time I get on these threads. I do not wish my actions to misrepresent God, and cause someone to close their heart and mind to Him.

I am glad I saw your post so that I was able to address this perception of me.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

What I saw was not a complaint about my religion. Nor was I addressing the one post about Creationist, as a complaint about their religion. I have been reading for sometime what are derogatory comments, not about religion, but about people who are religious. I was addressing this in general.

[orionblamblam]

> I have been reading for sometime what are derogatory comments, not about religion, but about people who are religious.

Well, when you have people who get pissy and demand that their religious notions get taught as *science,* you can expect that other people will use harsh language. And rightly so, IMO. Teaching theology as science is *massively* anti-American, and should be treated as all anti-American activities should be: start with ridicule and scorn, and go from there as circumstances call for.

[js1138]

The other day, on another thread, someone lamented that we can't execute people for heresy. On another current thread, someone is saying the Inquisition was just church business -- nothing to get upset about.

I would love to see a world in which believers conducted themselves with your style and grace.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I'm in agreement that theology shouldn't be taught as science.

I don't think it makes a person anti-American. I think they need better education about what science is. Which it's hard to educate someone, when you offend them in every post. Your arguments in science are strong, you don't need to do this to be effective.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Thank you. I apreciate that comment very much!