jh, Sorry you misunderstand Southern Baptitsts. We do teach to love the sinner as we recognize we are all sinners, but we also hate the sin. It may be that your guilt was the work of the Holy Spirit, not mean and misunderstanding believers. The only bashing I have seen within the SBC is the political activity of the pro-homosexual movement and to twisted meaning of tolerance. God's truth is...more

jh,
Sorry you misunderstand Southern Baptitsts. We do teach to love the sinner as we recognize we are all sinners, but we also hate the sin. It may be that your guilt was the work of the Holy Spirit, not mean and misunderstanding believers. The only bashing I have seen within the SBC is the political activity of the pro-homosexual movement and to twisted meaning of tolerance. God's truth is to love everybody but hate evil and sinful behavior. The evil is the homosexual agenda and the behavior is obvious. I pray you are attending a true church and not a false church that caters to what etching ears want to hear. NARTH.COM may prove to be a helpful resource for you.less

s8g; You call this science? The whole process within the APA was a joke. Over 2/3 of the psychiatrists disagreed with the APA change and consider homosexuality a disorder, which it is. "Nonetheless, quickly following the advice of the new homosexual advisors, two -thirds of the APA’s Board of Trustees (barely a quorum) voted to remove homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, with only two ...more

s8g;
You call this science? The whole process within the APA was a joke. Over 2/3 of the psychiatrists disagreed with the APA change and consider homosexuality a disorder, which it is.
"Nonetheless, quickly following the advice of the new homosexual advisors, two -thirds of the APA’s Board of Trustees (barely a quorum) voted to remove homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, with only two abstentions. A few voices formally appealed to the membership at large—scarcely a scientific modus operandi, either. Countering this appeal, every psychiatrist (tens of thousands) received a mailing urging them to support the change, purportedly for legitimate data-based reasons and apparently “from” the APA, but in fact surreptitiously financed entirely by the National Gay Task Force. Two -thirds of those members who did subsequently vote, voted to support the change—but only one-third of the membership responded (and far from all psychiatrists belonged to the APA to begin with). Four years later a survey in the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality showed that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote, and still considered homosexuality a disorder."less

s8g, The studies in favor of homosexuality are bogus: The rest is all politics for the APA to vote in favor of normalization. Voting in this nature is not science; it is politics lead by militaristic homosexuals and Progressive activists. http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf "Fairytales remind us of those simple truths that, as adults, we no longer wish to accept. “The Emp...more

s8g,
The studies in favor of homosexuality are bogus: The rest is all politics for the APA to vote in favor of normalization. Voting in this nature is not science; it is politics lead by militaristic homosexuals and Progressive activists.
http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
"Fairytales remind us of those simple truths that, as adults, we no longer wish to accept. “The Emperor’s New Robes” shows us that in e very generation, on certain matters, a whole society—its experts, its most admired, respected, and trusted leaders and counselors — will adopt as authoritative a complete illusion. Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past thirty -five years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist. In particular, they have cla imed to the Supreme Court that the scientific data show that homosexuals form a “class” whose boundaries are defined by a stable “trait.” This presumption is false, yet the recent Supreme Court decisions
pertaining to same-sex marriage have taken it for granted.
Part I of the paper reviews the history of the diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction."less

S8G, Science is incapable of determining right from wrong. Your argument is not only false but invalid as well. "Science says; so it must be true." What hogwash. Science never says; it is interpretations based on presuppositions. However, science had nothing to do with homosexuality being determined to be normal. Homosexual behavior is an abomination, morally, even though we have many homosexua...more

S8G,
Science is incapable of determining right from wrong. Your argument is not only false but invalid as well. "Science says; so it must be true." What hogwash. Science never says; it is interpretations based on presuppositions. However, science had nothing to do with homosexuality being determined to be normal.
Homosexual behavior is an abomination, morally, even though we have many homosexuals in our society. There are some proofs that demonstrate it is environmentally generated due to the way some people are raised. It is not a genetic issue as some would lead us to believe.
Do you suppose that those on the APA changed the diagnosis not by "science" but by politics and intimidation?
"Homosexual militants achieved a significant victory in 1973 when they succeeded in terrorizing the American Psychiatric Association (APA) into removing homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic
And Statistical Manual On Mental Disorders (DSM).
Homosexuals had lobbied the APA since 1971 and began disrupting APA
meetings, grabbing microphones and shouting down any psychiatrist who
considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder.
The tactics of 60s anti-war protesters worked. The APA caved and homosexuals have used this victory to proclaim that homosexual behavior is
normal."
Oh my! Science indeed......NOTless

S8G, You are telling lynnjax to not be a true Christian. That direction of yours does not lead to peaceful coexistene. It is an elitist telling somebody else how to behave and conform to another worldview. Laws are based on the ethics of a worldview and are designed to control behavior within a society. God has given all humanity laws for proper behavior including laws dealing with sexual beh...more

S8G,
You are telling lynnjax to not be a true Christian. That direction of yours does not lead to peaceful coexistene. It is an elitist telling somebody else how to behave and conform to another worldview.
Laws are based on the ethics of a worldview and are designed to control behavior within a society. God has given all humanity laws for proper behavior including laws dealing with sexual behavior. Sexual activity between a husband and wife is the established norm and conforms to God's law. Anything outside that norm is wrong and ultimately harms society.less

JB This appears to be a strawman fallacy you've created. Pro-life is a position supporting the liberty of life for innocents such as babies, the infirmed, victims of capital crimes, etc. Executions for capital crimes is a Godly sanction and proper punishment to prevent further loss of life to innocent victims.

Hello AO, I've gotten rather involved with some extensive home remodeling projects now and don't have the proper time to devote to our discussion any longer. So I am sure we will meet again on a future post after my remodeling is completed. Take Care Hawk PS: I enjoyed the civil tone of our discussion, thank you. I suggest you investigate the world and laws of information science and design a...more

Hello AO, I've gotten rather involved with some extensive home remodeling projects now and don't have the proper time to devote to our discussion any longer. So I am sure we will meet again on a future post after my remodeling is completed.
Take Care Hawk

PS: I enjoyed the civil tone of our discussion, thank you.
I suggest you investigate the world and laws of information science and design and construction engineering to truly help the biological sciences out onto a more appropriate course. You'll be way ahead of your contemporaries.less

Hello AO, Meyers has a number of peer reviewed articles, even reviewed by evolutionary scientists, along with multiple degrees. Unfortunately, the consensus community couldn't stand to have him published in a Smithsonian journal so they fired the editor. Smacks of censorship which is quite evident with many other instances. ID is fighting an up hill battle and making progress. Dover? If w...more

Hello AO,
Meyers has a number of peer reviewed articles, even reviewed by evolutionary scientists, along with multiple degrees. Unfortunately, the consensus community couldn't stand to have him published in a Smithsonian journal so they fired the editor. Smacks of censorship which is quite evident with many other instances. ID is fighting an up hill battle and making progress.

Dover? If we use your argument, Dover is meaningless as a scientific Vs religion decision was decided by a single, unqualified non-scientist. Particularly where the judge copied 90%, with all errors, of the ACLU position. The significant error he made was that ID is equivalent to creation science, which it is not. The Bible is not invoked and only the study and observation of matter, energy and information science are involved.

But elitism is not the issue, nor a single court case that errooneously invoked a decision that ID is a religion. It is historic science based on the forensic methodology. Discovery Instittute has demonstrated that.

Consensus doesn't make the position truth. Galileo is a perfect example. Consensus at the time was geocentric model. In addition, there are enough scientists, engineers and information scientists that doubt the viability of evolution alone for the variety of life as it fails to address real issues such as inability to produce the necessary information for the neo-Darwinian mechanism to cause macroevolution along with many of the icons that were originally used to support Darwinism falling by the wayside.

RNA is part of the DNA system. But if you are addressing the RNA world then it will be interesting to see if what Meyer's addressed is correct. His conclusion was the scientists involved are actually acting as the ID agents to design and create the RNA they want and working on simulations based on assumptions. If you are referring to Yarus work then ID as Meyer's addresses I believe still offers the best explanation.

"The reason I bring the book up here, however, is to note his extensive use of Dawkins’ famous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL evolutionary computing simulation. Yarus changes the target phrase to NOTHING IN BIOLOGY MAKES SENSE EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION, but the essence of Dawkins’ simulation is nonetheless there in all its glory — indeed, Yarus develops this “instance of evolution” more extensively than Dawkins did. Moreover, Yarus sees this simulation as underwriting the power of evolutionary processes."

What materialistic naturalism can't explain is the origination of information with the qualities I listed previously. Matter and energy are not capable of designing irreducible complex structures nor creating complex and specific language and encoding information. Materialistic naturalism shackles true science. I suspect that this stronghold will fall in the near future as ID Vs evolution debates continue.less

Hello AO; Yes, Meyers is a scientist as well as a philosopher of science. You're right, evolution is not just chance, as the faithful also bring in necessity or a combination of both for evolution to "work" There is not a natural law for creation of complex, specified information nor for designing items of specified complexity. Behe has demonstrated irreducible complexity quite adequately and ...more

Hello AO;
Yes, Meyers is a scientist as well as a philosopher of science.
You're right, evolution is not just chance, as the faithful also bring in necessity or a combination of both for evolution to "work"
There is not a natural law for creation of complex, specified information nor for designing items of specified complexity. Behe has demonstrated irreducible complexity quite adequately and has handsomely refuted the evolutionist complaints about his works. You may not agree, but so be it.
You requiring that somebody has to be a 'qualified' scientist is arbitrary and elititist for disallowing proper conclusions to be reached by "non-scientists".
You fail to understand the new paradigm of Information Science. Within the shackles of matter and energy you have mechanisms you are constrained with and have to work with. With Information the characteristics of what we are working with are different. You search for features such as statics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics as the measuring qualities to look for. DNA and its related systems has all these features. Using the laws of information you come to the conclusion of origination by an intelligent agency; matter and energy are incapable of originating this based on the limitations of what matter and energy can and can not do.
Take Careless

RSR; Antony Flew was a philosopher of science. Philosophy precedes science by defining its parameters. Flew was an expert in this field and realized he had to remove the arbitrary shackle of materialistic naturalism to get to the truth. He acknowledged the critical element of information and intelligent agency for DNA to exist. "Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What science is, how it ope...more

RSR;
Antony Flew was a philosopher of science. Philosophy precedes science by defining its parameters. Flew was an expert in this field and realized he had to remove the arbitrary shackle of materialistic naturalism to get to the truth. He acknowledged the critical element of information and intelligent agency for DNA to exist.
"Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What science is, how it operates, and what boundaries constrain it are each features of philosophy, not of science itself.
For example, in chapter three Hawking lists the virtues of a good scientific model.6 A good model…
• Is elegant.
• Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements.
• Agrees with and explains all existing
observations.
• Makes detailed predictions capable of falsifying
the model.
The list is a good one. The tally, however, is not the product of science, but of philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science. The scientist who dismisses philosophy does not thereby rid himself of its task. He merely condemns himself to do the philosopher’s job poorly."
You really should get out more :-)
carry onless

AO You read properly and have clearly identified the difference between operational and historical science. The forensic method is exactly what Meyers uses, and just as Flew did, followed the evidence to an intelligent designer as the DNA shows all attributes of information science, irreducible complexity and design and not random chance. There is no natural law or known action by matter and en...more

AO
You read properly and have clearly identified the difference between operational and historical science. The forensic method is exactly what Meyers uses, and just as Flew did, followed the evidence to an intelligent designer as the DNA shows all attributes of information science, irreducible complexity and design and not random chance. There is no natural law or known action by matter and energy alone that can do this. It mirrors everyday experiences of life for creation and manufacture by humans as we know it. The probability is exceedingly high that an intelligent agent was involved in creation of life.
That doesn't mean that investigations stop at this point. It just opens up a legitimate path for further research. We still will probably end up not knowing exactly how life was created unless the Creator left more clues such as used in foresic science through more research. We may also find some natural mechanism for creation of complex information and creating non-life to life that falsifies the best conclusion at this time which is design by a highly intelligent and articulate agent.
"But the stickleback fish is all one species, whether armored or not, and therefore a classic instance of microevolution—evolution within a species. Collins assumes, as Darwin did, that scientists may reasonably extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution."
As you quite accurately pointed out, Flew never became a Christian. He changed from atheist to theist by following the evidence and realizing that Information and intelligent design found in life, a component only intelligent agents can provide, can not be explained around the arbitrary restrictions of materialistic naturalism. This means that theists and agnostics (such a David Berlinski) also share in the DI movement and is not restricted to the Christian version of creation science as professed by ICR and AIG.less

Hello AO The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor [macro]evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth [and life] began. Perhaps you ...more

Hello AO
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor [macro]evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth [and life] began.
Perhaps you now are able to test and falsify how non-life became life? Perhaps how the information and language encoding was initially derived? Science works by following the evidence wherever it leads such as Antony Flew ended up doing along with those at DI. Testing for information from an intelligent cause can be done in both cases as well, but we are still limited to not being able to directly observe the past nor test those past events.less

railhead, You are correct. In fact, the geocentric model was adopted by the astronomers in western europe from the ancient Greeks; "In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as "geocentrism", or the Ptolemaic view of the whole universe), is the theory, now superseded, that the Earth is the center of the universe and other objects orbit around it. Belief in this system was common in ancient...more

railhead,
You are correct. In fact, the geocentric model was adopted by the astronomers in western europe from the ancient Greeks;
"In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as "geocentrism", or the Ptolemaic view of the whole universe), is the theory, now superseded, that the Earth is the center of the universe and other objects orbit around it. Belief in this system was common in ancient Greece. It was embraced by both Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy, and most, but not all, Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China."

I understand that the church did not object to Galileo's position, they requested he provide appropriate evidence to substantiate his claim. Galileo was unable to do that and then violoated an agreement he reached with the church by publishing stuff he wasn't supposed to. That is what got him into trouble.
A precursor of what happens to those scientists of today who don't toe the party line such as those found in Expelled.less

I don't know as I don't know who Hugh Owens is. I suppose it depends upon ones philosophic presuppostions and definition of true science.

dt, You may hate creationism and I hate humanism. You believe creationism is trying to force interpretations to fit the Bible, yet evolution is trying to force interpretations to fit a naturalistic presuppostion.

steve, I never said that, though it is an important factor for some. Hugh Owen takes that position.

RSR, Your request was for me to answer RBs comment, which I did. You've created the arbitrary criteria of being famous, contemporary scientists not involved with Expelled. Flew, Behe, Demski, and Meyers along with Ham have the evolutionist community up in arms about defending their beliefs. But truth, not fame, is the real issue and the above individuals have made some great inroads for truth....more

RSR,
Your request was for me to answer RBs comment, which I did. You've created the arbitrary criteria of being famous, contemporary scientists not involved with Expelled. Flew, Behe, Demski, and Meyers along with Ham have the evolutionist community up in arms about defending their beliefs. But truth, not fame, is the real issue and the above individuals have made some great inroads for truth.
carry onless

dear steve, you'll have to take up your first question with MCreek. We disagree about Darwin getting the origin of species right and I have no argument about natural selection being part of operation science, but not part of macroevolution. I gave you sufficient info to answer the Nazi question. The obvious answer is no, but that is not the issue lp brought up nor implied, is it? He made a ve...more

dear steve,
you'll have to take up your first question with MCreek. We disagree about Darwin getting the origin of species right and I have no argument about natural selection being part of operation science, but not part of macroevolution. I gave you sufficient info to answer the Nazi question. The obvious answer is no, but that is not the issue lp brought up nor implied, is it? He made a very accurate observation for discussion.less

dt, you say: The problem with religion and hatred is not an isolated point - it forms a large part of the new atheist case. Go through the history book - no, Dawkins and co have already done that. If religion repeatedly seems to be involved in such evil, then what of religion? You may argue that you see such use of religion as false, but they just point to the history books. I point to God's ...more

dt,
you say: The problem with religion and hatred is not an isolated point - it forms a large part of the new atheist case. Go through the history book - no, Dawkins and co have already done that. If religion repeatedly seems to be involved in such evil, then what of religion? You may argue that you see such use of religion as false, but they just point to the history books.

I point to God's word and ask if the fruits of evil actions by men bare the mark of God's will or fallen man? If by fallen man then make corrections to the history account. You suggest we should remain silent about Dawkins falsehoods?less

dt, you said: The simple truth is that evil people can quote the words of Christ or scientific theories, and try to warp them the way they want. That does not make the original ideas false. True, but Hitler used the words of Darwin to justify his slaughter (reference the last paragraph of my last post). It was an evil thing, but according to Darwin 'for the progress of civilization.' I would s...more

dt,
you said: The simple truth is that evil people can quote the words of Christ or scientific theories, and try to warp them the way they want. That does not make the original ideas false.
True, but Hitler used the words of Darwin to justify his slaughter (reference the last paragraph of my last post). It was an evil thing, but according to Darwin 'for the progress of civilization.' I would say that the original ideas of Darwin are false.less