Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[noguru]

I'm not arguing with Stripe...Barbarian and now you would rather attack a person seemingly unable to address their point.

What i said was...
Attacking the person rather than adressing their argument is ad hominem fallacy.

Stripe said "The problem is evolutionists, who want everything to be evolution."

Stripe is correct. There are evolutionists who argue good biological design is evidence of evolution ...and they argue that "sloppy" biological design is evidence for evolution. ...As Stripe said, 'they want everything to be about evolution'.

Right, because genetic variation and natural selection find success whenever a reproductive advantage is realized. Such an advantage might be due to optimal structures, or it might be sub optimal depending on circumstance. This supports a naturalistic explanation of evolution through common ancestry, rather than the YEC model of "supernaturally created kinds for specific environments". But you guys avoid the scrutiny of reason there by claiming that "Things only got sub optimal after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil". That my friend is the type scientific claims you guys make.

:rotfl:

 

[noguru]

Lots of words used by Dialogos to defend his ideas of academic freedom but little analysis of the weaknesses of his own argument...

I have no problem introducing the YEC model in science class. As long as it is honestly admitted that introducing "supernatural" mechanisms is paramount to excusing the model from the light of sound reason and rigorous scrutiny. If you guys are honest about that, we can spend a few minutes in class offering the model for people who prefer that double standard.

 

[Dialogos]

I have no problem introducing the YEC model in science class. As long as it is honestly admitted that introducing "supernatural" mechanisms is paramount to excusing the model from the light of sound reason and rigorous scrutiny.

When did you become an atheist Noguru?

 

[Kdall]

Stripe is correct. There are evolutionists who argue good biological design is evidence of evolution ...and they argue that "sloppy" biological design is evidence for evolution. ...As Stripe said, 'they want everything to be about evolution'.

Really? I seem to remember you saying both that the "perfection" of the eye is evidence of God, and accumulation of negative mutations is evidence of God. So good things prove God, and bad things prove God.

Pot. Meet kettle

 

[noguru]

When did you become an atheist Noguru?

:kookoo:

When did you get so stupid?

I was an atheist/agnostic for 17 years. Precisely because of the rubbish people like you send around as accurate information. Then I realized I cannot judge theism based on the tyrants that use religion to push their poorly thought out ideas. So I became a theist again, who questions the claim that "tradition (which is not as cut and dry as you would like us to believe) is somehow a higher authority than reason".

I am quite aware of how authoritarian traditionalists like you love to use "supernatural" as a way to avoid rigorous scrutiny of your ideas. You got your methodology that appears to be rigorous, but that denies the value of reason without a "supernatural" source for it. I can accept that God exists, independent of any claims regarding "supernatural". Because for many like you, claims of the "supernatural" doubles as away to force your ideas on other people without any sound reasoning.

 

[Dialogos]

:kookoo:

When did you get so stupid?

Grow up.

 

[Kdall]

When did you become an atheist Noguru?

10% of America buys into young Earth creationism.
70.6% of America is Christian.
That means that only 14.16% of Christians are YECs.

So I guess according to you, there are very few real Christians

 

[Dialogos]

10% of America buys into young Earth creationism.
70.6% of America is Christian.

I don't determine my theology based on statistics, do you?

That's a lot of Christians who don't agree with you. So I guess according to you, there are very few real Christians

Care to ask what I believe rather than put words in my mouth?

 

[Kdall]

I don't determine my theology based on statistics, do you?


Care to ask what I believe rather than put words in my mouth?

You called noguru an atheist for his non creationist stance. That puts you at odds with 85.86% of Christians in America on this issue. And since you think noguru is atheist for his stance, then by the transitive property you also think those who share his stance are atheists. That means you think that 85.86% of Christians in America are actually atheists.

You made your beliefs abundantly clear

 

[noguru]

Grow up.

Be honest.

 

[noguru]

You called noguru an atheist for his non creationist stance. That puts you at odds with 85.86% of Christians in America on this issue. And since you think noguru is atheist for his stance, then by the transitive property you also think those who share his stance are atheists. That means you think that 85.86% of Christians in America are actually atheists.

You made your beliefs abundantly clear

Dialogos is good at creating a lot of words in his posts. He seems to think he is an authority on theology and science. So if you oppose his views, then in his mind you are an atheist. In the end he gets seen for exactly what he is. Just a very vocal tyrant, who is actually against academic freedom when it opposes his views. He is just another deceitful YEC in a unique dress, a different facade designed to cover the same deceitful nature.

 

[noguru]

I don't determine my theology based on statistics, do you?


Care to ask what I believe rather than put words in my mouth?

Yes, you do. It is just the pool of who you feel is "authoritative" is smaller/different than the pool for others. You are, at heart, actually against academic freedom when it challenges your theological claims. But yet you want science to admit your theological claims into the classroom under the guise of "academic freedom".

 

[Dialogos]

You called noguru an atheist for his non creationist stance.

I asked when he became one?

He says that introducing "supernatural" mechanisms is paramount to excusing sound reason and rigorous scrutiny.

Well, If you believe in a Creator God in any sense, you conclude that there have been times when God exercises supernatural influence in the natural world and it appears that Noguru believes that this is paramount excusing sound reasoning.

So if you agree with the Theistic evolutionists, then you are condemned by Nogoru because you believe that God, at the very least, established natural laws and did so supernaturally.

If you are an Old Earth Creationist, you are condemned by Noguru for believing that God directly created humans.

And, of course, if you are a YEC you are the worst kind of human on the planet according to Noguru.

So either Noguru is inconsistent, believing in a Creator God while thinking that His creative work is contrary to sound reason or Noguru is an atheist.

That puts you at odds with 85.86% of Christians in America on this issue. And since you think noguru is atheist for his stance, then by the transitive property you also think those who share his stance are atheists.

You are telling me that 85.86 of all Christians in America beleive that there is a God but He doesn't supernaturally interact with His creation?
That would mean that there is a God but no creator. God is there, but didn't create.

Also, if God does not supernaturally intervene into nature then Christ is not born of a virgin (a problem for Christianity) and - even worse - Christ was not raised from the dead (a real problem for Christianity.)

Is that what you believe, or do you believe that God does supernaturally intervene in nature?

 

[noguru]

I asked when he became one?

He says that introducing "supernatural" mechanisms is paramount to excusing sound reason and rigorous scrutiny.

Well, If you believe in a Creator God in any sense, you conclude that there have been times when God exercises supernatural influence in the natural world and it appears that Noguru believes that this is paramount excusing sound reasoning.

So if you agree with the Theistic evolutionists, then you are condemned by Nogoru because you believe that God, at the very least, established natural laws and did so supernaturally.

If you are an Old Earth Creationist, you are condemned by Noguru for believing that God directly created humans.

And, of course, if you are a YEC you are the worst kind of human on the planet according to Noguru.

So either Noguru is inconsistent believing in a Creator God or Noguru is an atheist.



You are telling me that 85.86 of all Christians in America beleive that there is a God but He doesn't supernaturally interact with His creation?
That would mean that there is a God but no creator. God is there, but didn't create.

Also, if God does not supernaturally intervene into nature then Christ is not born of a virgin (a problem for Christianity) and - even worse - Christ was not raised from the dead (a real problem for Christianity.)

Is that what you believe, or do you believe that God does supernaturally intervene in nature?

Do you want this taught in science class under the umbrella of "academic freedom"?

I will remind you that this thread is about "Academic freedom in science education" and not an analysis of my theological musings.

Will you answer this squarely?

Or is your whole purpose here to try and "guilt" :rotfl: other Christians into submission and rally them into support for your deceitful cause?

 

[noguru]

And, of course, if you are a YEC you are the worst kind of human on the planet according to Noguru.

No, that is a misrepresentation of what I really think. I think that most individual YECs are harmless for the most part. It is the ones who lack empathy and also let all other reasoning slip from their grasp because of their belief in a virgin birth and resurrection that pose the most problems. The completely irrational ones become the most vocal in regard to a social agenda, and then they try to guilt other less vocal and more rational Christians into support for their cause. Then there are the documented problems from the whole "group think" tendency as well problems associated with the "mob rule" in step marching mentality. In the end there is often a lot of collateral damage from these people. And they are very negligent in regard to their awareness of the physical reality around them. And from my experience, when a person believes their negligence is condoned by God, then that negligence often becomes malice for all who differ in belief from them.

But you are right to a degree, I do have more confidence in independent thinkers. As well as people who can courageously admit their errors and their doubts over individuals who need to abide by "authority" and the false sense of certainty (which very often sacrifices clarity and accuracy) that comes from following one specific myopic group.

 

[Dialogos]

Do you want this taught in science class under the umbrella of "academic freedom"?

Personally, I think that discussing the historical accounts of the resurrection from a forensic science standpoint would be a fine topic to discuss but you and I know that a snowball has a better chance in hell than this topic has in the public school classroom.

Or is your whole purpose here to try and "guilt" :rotfl: other Christians into submission and rally them into support for your deceitful cause?

My deceitful cause of giving children the ability to look at multiple, competing hypotheses and allowing them to make up their own minds?


Mooooohooooohahahahahahahahahahahah!

...sinister...... isn't it.....

:Shimei:

 

[Dialogos]

But you are right to a degree, I do have more confidence in independent thinkers.

Independent minded people who want to censor information?

:dizzy:

After all, school kids might actually think about ID if those evil, plotting creationist get their way, right?

:shocked:

You may like the label of independent thinker but... please.... your approach is "party line" for mainstream culture.

 

[6days]

10% of America buys into young Earth creationism.*
70.6% of America is Christian.
That means that only 14.16% of Christians are YECs.

10% of America is vegetarian.
70.6% of America ate a hot dog last week.*
That means 14.16% of hotdog eaters are vegetarian.*

So I guess according to you, there are very few real Christians

So I guess according to you, there are very few real hot dog eaters.

I think we have a breakdown in logic.

 

[Dialogos]

10% of America is vegetarian.
70.6% of America ate a hot dog last week.*
That means 14.16% of hotdog eaters are vegetarian.*


So I guess according to you, there are very few real hot dog eaters.

I think we have a breakdown in logic.

Nice catch!

 

[The Barbarian]

10% of America buys into young Earth creationism.*
70.6% of America is Christian.
That means that only 14.16% of Christians are YECs.

There is a logic issue, but not what some here thought it was. YEC is more common among Muslims than Christians, so there are fewer YEC Christians than you suppose.