Posts by Shining One

ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

Hi Tetly,

I don't know how old the earth is. I guess that makes me in similiar to scientists, right? I can just guess and speculate! I can postulate hypothesis and try to pass them off as 'fact' in order to support my new found belief system, which is called naturalism. I could also be like you and get some measure of bitterness and satisfaction by gaining 'revenge' on God for 'letting JW's fool me for so long'. LOL
Now, as for the answer of 'how many days', I must ask this: how long were the 'days' and do they correspond to our present understanding of 'day', so I then need to check out the meaning of the Hebrew word used to relay this info.
Next, I need to analyze the scripture and then consult commentaries on Genesis. Are they an example of God using myths (not made up stories but stories that have an origin in truth) to tell us why certain things are as they are? Conversly, do I view them as absolutely literal truth conveyed to us in scripture?

The only one who as there at the time, our Lord Jesus Christ has an opinion on this. The first and foremost question about that is: how did He view Genesis? He was there. You weren't there. No scientist of any stripe was there. Science has no firm answers in Origins, it only has more questions arise as they postulate theories that are later proved wrong! I hope this helps, Tetly.
Rex

27

Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic

by Shining One in

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.id_coming_clean.htm .

ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

Shining One

Wow Abaddon. You took a long time to try and harpoon Dembski and come up empty! All you did was flame, spout analogies that DID NOT APPLY and demostrated your closed mindedness. This reply took about ten seconds. LOL
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Answer my charges, Gnat. You deny the doctinal statement of your alleged church. By denying scripture that you don't agree with, you deny the very foundation of the Christ you say you worship. You are a charlatan, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Answer the charges

Answer the charges

Answer the charges

I wonder if you will before we reach 100 posts on this thread?

Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

You are the 'joke' pole. You obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion. I was answering Alan's USE of Job, not the content of Job! He made an analogy that was out of context and does not apply to the question of apologetics. I will not be intimidated by others by their misuse of rhetoric and ridicule.
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

>What you credited to AlanF is actually Job's words, which you discard as "meaningless" and "fishy" rhetoric (much like his "friends" did).

I KNOW he was using Job's words. I was answering his argument in using them.

>Too bad you didn't get Kierkegaard's point about apologetics as the "Judas kiss of stupidity". If Christianity is only perceptible through "a personal relationship with the risen Lord" as you put it, then it cannot be defended on rational and objective grounds. Attempting to do so is a betrayal of its very essence.

You ignore my points on this very topic just to insist you are correct. This will go nowhere until you acknowledge my response.
Rex

27

Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic

by Shining One in

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.id_coming_clean.htm .

ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

Shining One

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.ID_coming_clean.htm

I’ll come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but I want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism. Ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and they’ll deny it. All of us agree that intelligent design is a much broader scientific program and intellectual project. Theists of all stripes are to be sure welcome. But the boundaries of intelligent design are not limited to theism. I personally have found an enthusiastic reception for my ideas not only among traditional theists like Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but also among pantheists, New-Agers, and agnostics who don’t hold their agnosticism dogmatically. Indeed, proponents of intelligent design are willing to sit across the table from anyone willing to have us.

That willingness, however, means that some of the people at the table with us will also be young earth creationists. Throughout my brief tenure as director of Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center, adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

I’m prepared to do neither. That said, let me stress that loyalty and friendship are not principally what’s keeping me from dumping my unsavory associates. Actually, I rather like having unsavory associates, regardless of friendship or loyalty. The advantage of unsavory associates is that they tend to be cultural pariahs (Phillip Johnson is a notable exception, who has managed to upset countless people and still move freely among the culture’s elite). Cultural pariahs can keep you honest in ways that the respectable elements of society never do (John Stuart Mill would no doubt have approved). Or as it’s been put, “You’re never so free as when you have nothing to lose.” Cultural pariahs have nothing to lose.

Even so, there’s a deeper issue underlying my unwillingness to renounce unsavory associates, and that concerns how one chooses conversation partners and rejects others as cranks. Throughout my last ten years as a public advocate for intelligent design, I’ve encountered a pervasive dogmatism in the academy. In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them “colleagues” since they’ve made it clear that I’m no colleague of theirs) to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism, because I don’t think the rules of science are inviolable, and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins.

http://www.iscid.org/

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000577.html

44

Battle Royal.

by Daunt in

when i told my mom and dad that i did not believe in the truth, i was jumping into unknown territory.

it has just never happened before.

now my parents are trying harder than ever to bring me back into the ranks.

Shining One

>The Earth is a circle The earth is a SPHERE!

>Just reach into your pocket and pull out a quarter. The quarter is a circle BUT IT IS FLAT!! The ancients believed the earth was like a dinner plate with a covering top dome on it.

You are talking about a particular passage that is poetry, Terry. You blew the context out. Even the ancient Mesopotamian astronomers knew that the earth was round. The later darkness of the middle ages obscured this fact.
Rex

44

Battle Royal.

by Daunt in

when i told my mom and dad that i did not believe in the truth, i was jumping into unknown territory.

it has just never happened before.

now my parents are trying harder than ever to bring me back into the ranks.

Shining One

Daunt,

>When we spoke about abortion, the mood was just a dead silent chill. When I spoke of the cost that abortions take on the women of this country they quickly went on to say, “But you do know it’s taking a life right?”.

DO you know that? Do you also know that abortion has some very real complications, both physical and mental?

>Forget about discussing and analyzing the question they immediately just went on with their dribble. They continued to talk about how if they believed in abortion I wouldn’t be here. They never really gave information or reason, but they kept harping on how it’s destroying a life and that I wouldn’t be here if they believed it, never really attacking abortion itself.

They attacked it directly. It is the taking of a completely defenseless human life. It is murder. Have you ever seen a 12 week gestation baby after some wonderful abortionist removed this unwanted piece of flesh? Have you ever seen what happens to a third trimester, partial birth aborted baby? This is the stuff of nightmares. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You have probably sealed the fate of your parents in the WBTS. They will not want to 'become what you have become'. I am not trying to be cruel, think about this some.
Rex