Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist 'debate' (enemy, racism)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

Here's the problem with making up a new definition of Intelligent Design (I.e.: Something that we can prove had a designer, like GMO crops)

It's not a new definition. ID in fact does not assert that the universe and all living things were created, nor does it name any specific designer. It only asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." GMO crops do indeed fit that definition.

As an alternative to evolution though?

No (as I've stated many times), as a coexisting concept. There's no need for an alternative to evolution. There is evidence for both the Theory of Evolution and ID. Furthermore, neither has a complete record. One cannot disprove the other. To think that it has to be either/or, is a false dichotomy.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator

When in the real world, it's easy to tell from your parroting that you read a big word and are now using it everywhere incorrectly.

I quoted you implying the false either/or dichotomy. Are you now trying to tell us that you don't know what you're saying?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator

Because, if you can't comprehend, the concept that certain mutations/evolutionary traits are done by design and that some could potentially be caused by natural forces is pretty much agreed upon by most intellectuals.

And, again, you're STILL missing the point that it's NOT an either/or dichotomy. Both theories (ToE, ID) coexist. There is evidence of both, and neither has a complete record. Neither disproves the other.

[Ecstatic Magnet]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Learn to think critically.

[Ecstatic Magnet]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Your condescending manner is tiring. I'll not waste more time here.

You better get used to quitting if you can't carry on an intelligent conversation.

[css9450]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I'll not waste more time here.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Exactly that again, css9450. None of you can explain away the fact that GMO crops do not fit the Theory of Evolution, but do indeed fit the definition of ID.

And many of you get quite belligerent when trapped in that quandary. The more nasty the responses while still not being able to refute the fact I've presented about GMO crops NOT fitting the ToE, the more I know I've made my point.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The quandary is that while not fitting the ToE, they DO fit the definition of ID. Many have gotten quite enraged and nasty when faced with that fact.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Perhaps they should have stopped posting their belligerent disagreements, then, when they knew damn well they couldn't refute the fact that GMO crops don't fit the ToE and DO fit exactly the definition of ID. Those nasty posts kept the discussion going. How do you not get that?

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

And yet another angry belligerent response from still another C-D member who disingenuously conflates Creationism with ID when the two are notably different, and cannot dispute the fact that GMO crops are currently living evidence of ID.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

And Obama admitted his spiritual mentor of over 20 years was what we now know is a racist minister. So, according to your logic, that makes Obama racist, as well.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

If you're really going to claim ID is Creationism, you'd also have to concede that Obama is a racist. It's the same mentality.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I see you're another proponent of the Obama is a racist crowd.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You're not getting it. GMO crops are clear, current evidence of Intelligent Design. They exist, and don't fit the Theory of Evolution.

ID doesn't disprove the Theory of Evolution, and ToE doesn't disprove ID.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Your claim is that ID proponents are "Creationists" even though they don't assert that the universe and all living things were created, and don't name a "creator?"

Same mentality as the "If you don't like Obama, you're a racist" crowd.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's the same mentality. You may not be aware that Obama identified his spiritual mentor of over 22 years as a certain racist minister at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology church based on the theories of James Hal Cone, who is also a racist.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080325...ing_points.htm

Cone: "All white men are responsible for white oppression. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'"
Living Stones in the Household of God: The Legacy and Future of Black Theology - Google Books

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's the same mentality.
It would actually be the other way around. Obama, his church, the Rev. who married the Obamas and baptized their children, and his spiritual mentor of 20+ years would be the ones having hangups over whites, if the same mentality some of you are applying in regards to ID were to apply in this matter.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, that's a natural process unless one artificially alters the resultant offspring's genetic material. Artificially altering genetic material to produce crops that have otherwise non-naturally occurring attributes is, in fact, ID.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

ID isn't Creationism. Creationism asserts that God created the universe and all living things. The definition of ID is: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"

ID neither asserts that the universe and all living things were created, nor does it name a designer.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Not in regards to GMO crops.
Artificially altered genetic material, resulting in life forms that would not otherwise exist.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, as there would have been insufficient proof, IMO.

As there is now proof of ID in life forms, and ID does not assert that there is/was any specific designer, it can't be ruled out that other changes in life forms were not the result of artificial genetic alteration. Remember that there are gaps in the fossil record. There is not a complete evolutionary mapping from the origins of life to present day.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You're really pinning all your hopes on an outdated document?

If you wish to believe so, you'd also have to concede that Obama is a racist based on the documented evidence from his self-admitted spiritual mentor of 20+ years, which I've already provided. It's the same mentality.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Fair enough. Here's a challenge for you...

Prove that the currently existing GENETICALLY Modified crops would have evolved via the Theory of Evolution. Let's see your evolution map, including any and all possible offspring permutations, naturally occurring genetic mutations, rule out the deleterious effects of such mutations, the heritability of the mutated traits, etc., etc.

Here's only a partial list of GMO crops:

Maize
Wheat
Rapeseed/Canola
Soybeans
Cotton

And remember that several have stacked non-naturally occurring GM traits.

You can even use... gasp... SCIENCE to try to do it.

Get moving! You have a lot of work to do!

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

How far have you gotten on your challenge...? Hmmm...?

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

They're not about intellectual debate. They're about throwing temper tantrums because they cannot grasp the concepts.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's not a new definition. ID in fact does not assert that the universe and all living things were created, nor does it name any specific designer. It only asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." GMO crops do indeed fit that definition.
No (as I've stated many times), as a coexisting concept. There's no need for an alternative to evolution. There is evidence for both the Theory of Evolution and ID. Furthermore, neither has a complete record. One cannot disprove the other. To think that it has to be either/or, is a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

ID isn't Creationism. Creationism asserts that God created the universe and all living things. The definition of ID is: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"

ID neither asserts that the universe and all living things were created, nor does it name a designer.

Originally Posted by Ceist

In that other thread, people were posting reams of evidence that the Intelligent Design movement is a Creationist strategy that has been exposed in a court of law; exposed by their own Wedge strategy document and exposed by the statements by it's own proponents etc. You just ignored it all and posted the same thing over and over again in a troll-like manner. You even quoted a definition of ID that was created by Creationists from the Discovery Institute about 50 times - thereby reinforcing with every post that ID is a strategy by Creationists to pretend that it is science so they could get it taught in science classes.

Your GMO crops=ID nonsense is not what this topic is about either. As the OP of this thread, I will report your posts as off-topic trolling if you persist in trying to derail this thread like you did the other one.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Can't refute the fact the GMO crops are currently living examples of ID, so you threaten. How so very typical. [yawn...]

This thread is not about GMO or Obama. Your posts have been reported as off-topic trolling.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's the same mentality.
It would actually be the other way around. Obama, his church, the Rev. who married the Obamas and baptized their children, and his spiritual mentor of 20+ years would be the ones having hangups over whites, if the same mentality some of you are applying in regards to ID were to apply in this matter.

Yeah, Trinity UCC has a huge hangup over whites that is why they voluntarily remain a member church of the United Church of Christ which is overwhelmingly white (90%+). Virtually anything Trinity members do within the UCC denomination, which is a lot, has them working in situations where whites predominate.

[Ceist]

When even tele-evangelist Pat Robertson thinks you're a joke, you're in trouble:

Pat Robertson begs Ken Ham to shut up

"On the Wednesday edition of his TV show, “The 700 Club,” Robertson indirectly implored Ham to put a sock in it, criticizing Ham’s view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [James Ussher] … who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson began. “There ain’t no way that’s possible … To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”

“We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science,” Robertson continued, “and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

“Let’s be real,” Robertson begged, “let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWAbr-SoMAs

[TylerJAX]

All I have to say is that ID is a philosophical position and has no place in a science classroom. You can drum up the philosophical merits of ID all you want, but it's an inherently unscientific idea.