Meyer's Hopeless Monster

I'm disgusted. A lot of it is questionable or false and I spotted some outright lies. And the "interviewer" is an accomplice to this sleazy propaganda piece.

quote:

---

Chapman: Behe is a highly respected microchemist in his field, and he has shown there are no Darwinian explanations for what he sees in the cell.

---

Percy is correct that that is what I heard most of all. But this does not make Janet an "accomplise". That would be a difference of Meyer and/or Sternberg.
I "see" things in the cell too. That is why I posted on today's Janet's and ICR's this month stem cell impact issue.
see@http://EvC Forum: What's wrong with reproductive cloning? -->EvC Forum: What's wrong with reproductive cloning?
But you might notice if you had known me better than my mom that I did not and was not planning on even reading that Impact article. I had got it in the mail and shelved the whole thing.I do have an open mind so I would be curious to know what you consider a lie? was it in the text Percy quoted?? One of the hardest thing in writing e/c is to get into the c/e position. I had a hard"" time with listening to Janet for a while, when say she had on Hugh Ross etc but if you listen to her enough it is not hard to seperate her believes from her feelings. I think of her broadcast from the Republican Convention in NYC etc etc etc. Sure

quote:

---

Janet: One would think the Smithsonian would be a bastion of liberalism and openmindedness, but apparently when someone with two PhD's like Richard Sternberg dares question Darwinism he is sunk into the primordial ooze fighting for his job. If you touch Darwinism then you're going to have a shambles of your professional career. Sternberg is trying to save his career because he has been so vilified by the Smithsonian.

---

sounds"" bad to ears that cant hear etc(THE SECONd DPH) but trust me that is only said in a way that can only HELP those that even would disgree with her (as opposed to the subject (Meyer and Sternberg etc)) as it sets up the difference so that you as a listener can judge. I think the piece while showing perhaps by hear say that there WAS religious discrimination it still remains that if ID IS SCIENCE it has to have the evidence. I think more than anything the only real point in it so far was that it is NOT to be a 'personal' disagreement. This I would agree to. That is how I have the balls to keep posting here, because it seems to be nothing but a "personal disagreement" between me and other Cornell profs that prevented me from becoming so far an evolutionist. How much creationism I have picked up is not the evolutionists fault but due to the good will of creationists. No I dont think the world gives us much of a chance to HAVE a free will but sometimes I pretend it is. Making babies to kill them only shows that even these moments are being bought at the secular price limit. That is sad but not what this post is about.Janet lives a little bit NORTH of my brother and I have listened to her show from Maryland, so I know that her propaganda is just that, a prefix to a word the IMpRaMature was already said for for the "in" or "con" there of. Sorry if that was gibberish but I can hear her shows VERY well.Obviously being the most cited email is not necessarily a judgement on the scientific soundness. We know that and so do ""they.

Brad McFall writes:

quote:

---

I think the piece while showing perhaps by hear say that there WAS religious discrimination it still remains that if ID IS SCIENCE it has to have the evidence.

---

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? There's no compelling evidence for ID, so shouldn't it be regarded as philosophy and not science?

quote:

---

That is how I have the balls to keep posting here, because it seems to be nothing but a "personal disagreement" between me and other Cornell profs that prevented me from becoming so far an evolutionist.

---

Nothing but a personal disagreement about what? Whether or not ID was science or about a mere belief in ID as philosophy? Or was it something else?Several months ago I asked you about your issues with the professors at Cornell. Your response was mostly unintelligible to me, but you've been doing so much better at communicating lately that I thought I'd ask again. Do try to keep it simple, please.

quote:

---

Making babies to kill them only shows that even these moments are being bought at the secular price limit.

---

Are you talking about stem cell research? That's not what's happening, Brad. I don't claim to fully understand how it all works, but from what I've read these are little more than fertilized eggs, there are no human-like features. Fertility clinics destroy fertilized eggs every day. What's the harm in using them to grow a few cells before they're destroyed?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

redirect
EvC Forum: What's wrong with reproductive cloning?

Since Sternberg is not actually an employee of the Smithsonian, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has concluded it does not have jurisdiction. More discussion on The Panda's Thumb at Sternberg complaint dismissed.

Meldinoor has just proposed the Suppression of Intelligent Design topic, which directly relates to this topic.Adminnemooseus

This topic's theme is showing up here, here, and also probably elsewhere in the "Peer Review or BUST??" topic. For whatever it's worth, I put links to other "peer review" related topics at the end of message 1 of that topic.Adminnemooseus

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented, just as in all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. "An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model. funny photosEdited by Admin, : Spamify link.

The evidence is what is here.
The universe.
thats evidence it came into being by mechanisms and not out of nowhere.
Then one examines the evidence of nature.
Then conclusions.
ID or YEC do better or as well on the different subjects dealing with origins as the old school of evolutionism etc.
Its spot on to first discredit the reigning error and then make your case.
ID and YEC have done so well, despite being denied audiences by a hostile establishment, that they are dominating the conversation about origins as shown by evolutionism need to desperately react.

Um ... back in the real world, I don't know if you've noticed, 99% of creationism is in fact a "desperate reaction" to evolution in the form of angry whining about it. It's not like they're out there putting a positive case for the hypothesis that snakes used to be able to talk or that our sense of morality was initially acquired by eating fruit. No, it's evolution this and evolution that, over and over.Similarly, if you look at what the evolutionists are writing you can read whole books about evolution which just talk about evolution and never find it necessary to point out the difficulties of verbal articulation in snakes.Look at your own posting history using the forum search. You have made posts using the word "evolution" more times than the forum software will let me count. And the word "Eden" once. "Noah" three times. "Six days" --- never. "Adam" --- never. "Eve" --- never. "Tree of knowledge" --- never. You have barely mentioned the events in the Book of Genesis, preferring to bang on and on about evolution --- and you say what is "dominating the conversation about origins"? Creationism doesn't even dominate what creationists have to say about origins.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Evolutionists complaint would be that creationists ARE invoking scripture.
I don't except as basic presumptions.
I deal with particular subjects or general themes without much verses because i attack on the evidence and the reasoning and investigation capability.
I deal a great deal with mechanisms in nature and I guess not much with scripture.
however scripture is the boundary and if so it would make a better product for the one who obeys it.Creationism starts with a witness but evolution etc is all about the quality and quantity of evidence from nature.
Thats the problem with modern evolutionism.
Its coming under great and aggressive forensics.

No, our complaint would be that you are completely unable to substantiate it with facts. I think if this was translated from Byersish into English it would say: "It's a good thing that the conversation is dominated by evolution, and that creationists have given up trying to make a case for creationism."Well, you guys know your own business best; but the fact remains that the conversation is almost exclusively about evolution (and the other aspects of science that creationists don't like). To pretend otherwise, as you did in message 204, is ludicrous.