A view from the center.......OK left center

[shagdrum]

unfortunately shag, your view on suppression of intelligent design is wrong. science is not out to suppress it, merely to make it prove itself as a scientific claim, which it refuses to do. it keeps claiming it is science, without taking the steps necessary to fulfill the claim. in science, this is called bad science.

We have already had that debate in another thread. I am not going to go down that path with you here because it would distract too much from the focus of this thread.

But science is trying to supress ID and claim it is simply expecting ID to prove itself scientifically. They do so by raising the goalposts. They don't allow ID studies to be peer reviews, then claim that it is not proven science because it has not been peer reviewed. They redefine science to exclude ID then claim that that ID cannot meet the definition of science. These (and many other) tactics used by the scientific community effectively raise the bar to an unrealistic and unreachable level. It is a dishonest tactic that is ment to avoid any debate over ID and darwinism and to supress ID.

and the heliocentric view had been empirically proven at a time when christianity held to it's views. the sun around the earth is a religiously based view. read the book of enoch, and not just the parables. other societies had and accepted a heliocentric view well before europe, which was propogated by RELIGION.

a geocentric view comes directly from scripture and god and creation, which puts man and earth central to all. it was christianity within europe that perpetuated the myth when copernacanism came to light. and it was religious powers that supressed the truth.

Outside of your mere assertions to the contrary, nothing you cite in that post show that the geocentric view originated and was based in any religion. All that is shown is that it was supported by the Church and people in the Church worked to supress heliocentrism.

So you have demonstrated a corrupt church, congradulations. But you have yet to show that the geocentric view originated with religion, or even the institutions of religion. Considering that was the original claim, that is what you need to prove or disprove. Everything else is irrelevant to proving that and is a waste of time.

and discoveries of lincoln or reagan or the framers. they were scientists? your path here is a red herring. or a non sequitur.

Remember, I am attacking the conclusion, not the premise. You are focusing on the premise. The conclusion does not follow the premise, which is what I am pointing out. It is not a red herring or non sequiter to show how an argument is flawed. The other ways that the the conclusion can be reached without the premise are very relevant to showing that the conclusion does not follow the premise.

I also said that Lincoln Reagan and the Framers did not discover anything to change society. You are mischaracterising me.

Lets not get into another debate on darwinism vs. ID here (and the surrounding issues). Those tend to get pretty epic and belong in another thread. Besides, every thing that can and needs to be said on that issue in this forum has already been covered ad nausseum in the Expelled thread.

 

[shagdrum]

Appearances can be misleading.
I'm not disdainful of religious people who mind their own business.
My mother is very religious and I see the comfort and perseverence it gives her.
I'm disdainful of those who run for public office and try to get people to vote for them because of their faith.

It does look like you think of them as weak individuals and are condescending toward them. The Einstein quote you agreed to pretty well shows that. You called religion a "handicap". It is rather clear you view people of faith as having some sort of mental handicap.

There is nothing wrong with showing one's faith in a campaign. It is very telling about a person in a number of ways.

Besides, identity politics is pretty common today. Many women were supporter Hillary (and are now supporting Palin) due to her gender. The same is true for much of the black community in supporting Obama. And all those people are basing it on being able to identify with the candidate.

That is not neccessarily absurd, either. If a candidate has that in common for you, and that is an important issue for you, you are going to be more inclined to support them due to the fact that they are going to work to support issues favorable to that identification. Candidates with faith are generally not going to support legislation that restricts religion; Female candidates are generally not going to support any agenda restrictive to women; a black candidate is generally not going to support an agenda that works against blacks. Being a part of that community, they all have a stake in that community and are not far removed from it (as most politicians seem to be).

So it is not absurd to play up the faith angle in an election. Also, to remain competitive in an election you need to play up any positive angle, no matter how superficial. That is the nature of campaign's today.

Also, playing up faith for a candidate does give that candidate the appearance of being a moral person, even if it is only an appearance. It helps them seem more trustworthy. So it is not aburd or disdainful to play up faith.

 

[foxpaws]

Besides, identity politics is pretty common today. Many women were supporting Hillary (and are now supporting Palin) due to her gender.

rofl....

That is a good one shag...

 

[04SCTLS]

So it is not absurd to play up the faith angle in an election. Also, to remain competitive in an election you need to play up any positive angle, no matter how superficial. That is the nature of campaign's today.

Also, playing up faith for a candidate does give that candidate the appearance of being a moral person, even if it is only an appearance. It helps them seem more trustworthy. So it is not aburd or disdainful to play up faith.

She already has the republican base vote locked up.
They're not the ones she needs to court.
Maybe she just loves to see herself applauded.
Your statement suggests you find her faith "superficial"
and that she only appears trustworthy.
I think she's the real thing and not just cynically conning the base by telling them what they want to hear.
I just think she puts too much faith in her "faith" to bring her votes
outside the republican base.
If anything it puts a lot of people off who may otherwise consider her.
Earnest but not particularly shrewd.

 

[shagdrum]

rofl....

That is a good one shag...

But true. Not all women are supporting either of them purely because of identity politics, and not all female hillary supporters are supporting Palin. But enough are, and enough, in both cases are basing their support, in large part on identity politics.

 

[shagdrum]

She already has the republican base vote locked up.
They're not the ones she needs to court.

Right now, it is as much about energizing the base as attracting new votes. In fact, this close to election day, I would say it is more about energizing the base so as to get out the vote.

the base of the conservative party has no love for McCain, so Palin is the one to energize the base; and she has done an exceptional job at that. That has been clear since her speech at the convention.

Your statement suggests you find her faith "superficial"
and that she only appears trustworthy.

Oh, no I think her faith is very real. She does come across in her words and her actions as, if nothing else, a very humble and genuine person. Two qualities that are almost always present in the Christians I know (pastors, and other parts of the church "elite" excluded). The Christian views she espouses are consistent with her actions as governor, so it doesn't seem that it is just for show.

The superficial comment is more directed at the many liberal politicians (and some republicans) who give lip-service to having faith but support policy that is antathema to religion. Religious gestures are token gestures at best for these people. So claims of faith by them are purely superficial, and ment as nothing more then self-aggrandizement.

I just think she puts too much faith in her "faith" to bring her votes
outside the republican base.
If anything it puts a lot of people off who may otherwise consider her.
Earnest but not particularly shrewd.

Actually, to many it is very refreshing. You hear and see superficial religious gestures from politicians who upon closer examination are clearly not religious people and share your condescending view of people of faith. Since most; elitists, the media, hollywood and college professors share the same view as you (though they would never admit it), so that view is what is echoed more and given more credence through shear verbosity.

However, most voters don't share that view of religion and don't view Palin's faith (or her playing up of that faith) as a negative. They view it as a neutral or a positive. Remember, the american voter is typically center-right.

Matters like this come down to perception.

While it is not overly logical in drawing a conclusion about the majority of the country, I will point out a personal fact...

The only people who I have met or talked to who don't like Palin for her faith (or the playing up of her faith) are people who are either ignorantly distrusting of religion in general, or are adamant athiests who hate religion and view people of faith as stupid and incapable of critical thought.

One of these athiests even made an argument to me (and has written papers in college) that it was immoral for churches to exist! He claimed he could morally justify killing Christians!!

Obviously a dispicable human being...

 

[foxpaws]

But true. Not all women are supporting either of them purely because of identity politics, and not all female hillary supporters are supporting Palin. But enough are, and enough, in both cases are basing their support, in large part on identity politics.

Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin

I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.

Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate.

As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...

 

[shagdrum]

Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin

I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.

Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate.

As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...

I never said that most female hillary supporters were supporting Palin; only that a lot of them were.

 

[fossten]

For instance "vote for her because she's one of us"

Hail Sarah
Palin courts believers in Virginia.

STUFF

Sort of like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOP18lYr7ms

 

[shagdrum]

Ahh... the old hrmwrm wall 'o' text post....

You are pretty good at taking quotes out of context. Besides, all you have shown is that there are scripture's that can viewed as supporting a geocentric view. It doesn't show that the idea originated from scripture.

Most all those quotes are simply using the nomenclature of the sun rising and setting that is still used today. Almost no one today believes in a geocentric view, but almost everyone describes the sun as rising and setting. Your making another specious argument.

And if you want to debate ID, use the appropriate thread, we are rehashing the stuff here. But I don't see how the scientific community attempting to redefine science to exclude ID is not in some way moving the goalposts. Specifically it is setting up a false dilemma (through equivocation) to move the goalposts.

 

[fossten]

Have any of you seen hrmwrm and Mick Jagger in the same place at the same time? :shifty:

 

[fossten]

Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin

I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.

Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate.

As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...

You forget, there is an entire organization of Hillary supporters who are backing McCain, and no less than Lynn Forrest de Rothschild did the entire cable news circuit telling everybody why McCain was the right choice. So laugh it up all you want.

 

[shagdrum]

and reading all that, without posting up the parts of the bible about the pillars and foundations(reference to flat earth), gates on the sides of the earth releasing the sun and moon WOULD leave one to believe a geocentric position. it refers to more than rise and set. as for originating from scripture, isn't that god's word and truth? ask fossten about that one. besides, you stated something totally different

"it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. "

you have nothing to say it came from that either. there was heliocentric views at the same time as scripture was written. so it wasn't empirical research and observation of the time.

There may have been heleocentric views at the time that that scripture was written...so what? The generally accepted view long before scripture was even conceived was the geocentric one. That remained the case until it was eventually disproven and accepted by the elites in society.

And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time; which mostly amounted to direct observation as there were next to no tools to aid in observing anything. As better tools came along, the geocentric view lost credibility.

For your argument to be true, the scriptures that can be interpreted to support the geocentric view would have had to come about before man was able to look at the stars.

and i'm not here to debate id, merely to clear your spurious claims. id has had alot of years to put forward what is required to make it a scientific claim, but unfortunately their data is highly manipulated and lacking. science is still the same as it always was. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. you have that quite backwards. id wants to redefine science to fit it. and when you wish to back up your claim, you'd better provide unmitigating proof of claim. this is where id has failed and refuses to comply. those are the facts.

The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about. In regards to looking at the question that both Darwinism and ID try to answer, it effectively redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science.

Word of advice: "let it go"

 

[shagdrum]

from shag "And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time"
"redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science."

you seem a little confused even within the same post. unempirical(?) is the cornerstone of what defines a sciene? i don't quite know what your getting at here. maybe elaborate on your exact meaning of this.

"The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about"

and by this statement you admit that id is trying to redefine science to suit it's purpose, not that science is redifining itself to exclude id.

Not quite.

The scientific establishment is trying to redefine what qualifies as a science to include methodological naturalism. If that is part of the definition, then any study to discover how life (and various species) came to be is inherently not empirical anymore. Since empirical findings are necessarily at the core of what a science is, that makes any study into how life came to be, unscientific.

But, redefining science to include methodological naturalism would exclude ID as a science.

 

[shagdrum]

the scientific method has always been not to include supernatural causes in it's investigation of nature. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. science makes no assumption of whether there is or isn't divinity.this has been a ploy by id proponents to imply science is atheistic in nature.

ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either, like methodological naturalism does. ID looks at things purely empirically.

And, no, the scientific method has not always functioned on the premise of methodological naturalism. That is something that has come up (relatively) recently in the scientific community in response to ID.

 

[cammerfe]

I haven't been to Seattle since 1945. At that time, as a child, I lived in Renton for several years. And as I remember the weather, I can't say that Seattle is high on my list of places to visit.

I won't bother to pick your statements apart. I'll only say, generally, "Non Sequitur". Let's just agree to disagree. I am truly sorry we're so far apart both philosophically and spatially. Starbucks would be good.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

"ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either"

you keep arguing this fallacy. the man who started id, phillip johnson, has declared that his intentions were to put god back into creation.

but let's assume you're correct. then if it's not supernatural, then what is it? and what were it's beginnings? to be taken seriously, you have to have a starting point. there is no method, no modus operandi, no nothing. just i see intelligence in design. if it's not supernatural, then you'll have to state what the intelligence is.

and science looks at things empirically, without external influence(or not at least verifiable external influence). without a verifiable external influence, something that can be pointed to and said to be the mechanism of operation, then id is just a cult.

Let. It. Go.