Good one.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

[quote=Botnst;1853142]If a researcher wishes to take a point of scientific reference that seems untenable to the reviewers then he wont get funding from sources that use those reviewers. So you go to another source and apply. Repeat.


There are LOTS of very conservative people (in the religious sense) with lots of money. They fund research hospitals and universities. If those people believe that scientists are missing a whole rich field of scientific research in the affect of the deity on life, then they should (by God) pony-up and fund the research. Mindful of course, that scientists are pretty darned tough on methodology. You can do all kinds of research but scientific researchers have a persnickety bunch of rules. It doesn't mean other forms of research are wrong, it simply means they don't conform to scientific principles.





Makes sense to me and you... but, when methodology and scientific processes are really applied, I.D.ers start bringing in the "faith" or "miracle" factor. There goes any strict scientific guidlines! Most I.D.ers don't believe in carbon dating and that the Earth is much older than their bible says.

Since I.D.ers fail to addopt strict scientific guidlines when doing their research, the scientific takes a "pass" on all most of their "contrived" preaching.

]

Makes sense to me and you... but, when methodology and scientific processes are really applied, I.D.ers start bringing in the "faith" or "miracle" factor. There goes any strict scientific guidlines! Most I.D.ers don't believe in carbon dating and that the Earth is much older than their bible says.

Again, I will repeat, NOWHERE does the Bible say how old is the earth.
Rather than simply repeat the allegation--show me where the Bible makes ANY such statement.---or you can continue to take that statement on faith because it supports your viewpoint---not a very scientific approach, that.

As for "faith", When it comes to ultimate beginnings, Darwinists are in the same boat. Some of their musings as to the origin of life, or of matter sound very much like "faith".

Scientifically should not they reply, " We don't know" and leave it at that?

Here's another question, Suppose that scientists manage to create life in the laboratory. What would that prove, other than intelligence was required to create life? Would such laboratory-created life have any bearing on our understanding of how life actually began, historically?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Evolutionists should definitely answer, "We don't know," when asked about the origin of life. That is completely outside of the theory.

As for your second question, it would prove sufficiency but not necessity. No new knowledge would necessarily result as to what actually happened.

For the comments that I snipped, I agree with you.

I completely agree. And that's why, thus far, their research gets no play or little play in the scientific press. As it should be. When they conform rigorously to the scientific method they will get in.

No scientific editor worth a crap would pass-up an opportunity to publish a rigorously scientific study that involved a deity. That kind of publication would be at least as upsetting to the current dogma as Copernicus was to his. Nobody wants to go down in history as the guy who suppressed sucha momentous result!

B

Perhaps it's the way the new film "Expelled" skews its perspective to the point where evolutionary theory is made to appear old-school, reactionary and intolerant of such innovative ideas as Creationism, a line of inquiry roughly as fresh and cutting-edge as the Holy Bible's Book of Genesis. Or maybe it's the way a flag-waving Stein casts responsible attempts to keep faith-based belief outside the realm of empirical science as a violation of free speech and a threat to our American way of life, likening conditions in this "scientific gulag" to life in East Berlin (the film makes ample use of Cold War-era newsreel, kitschy social engineering films from the '50s and footage of Stalin). Or maybe it's the way in which the lack of evidence supporting "I.D." is glossed over in favor of a one-sided attack on Darwinism's "failings," like evolutionary theory's inability to provide a simplistic answer to the huge question of how life was first created. Perhaps the real insult comes from the cloying sympathy heard in Stein's voice as he interviews those brave Darwin-doubters who sacrificed to what he characterizes as a vast, anti-I.D. conspiracy involving the Academy, the media and the courts, the undisguised sneer with which he dismisses speculative evolutionary theories as "science fiction," and the tone with which he poses loaded, ridiculous questions to the likes of Oxford biologist and pop-atheist Richard Dawkins.

Any of these factors can be taken as an affront to viewers expecting a clear, reasoned argument from a documentary. But surely the film's greatest offense is the utter shamelessness with which it exploits the Holocaust, veering far off topic for a side trip to Nazi killing centers at Hadamar and Dachau in an attempt to tar Darwin with the old "Evolution led directly to eugenics and the Final Solution" brush. The camera's slow tracking shots through the death camps are followed by a similar creepy crawl through Down House, where Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. None of this has anything to do with the validity of evolutionary theory or intelligent design, and only serves to point up how any theory can be used to justify evil ends.This is just slickly produced nonsense that is abusive in it's treatment of the scientific community and the whole memory of the holocaust and it's victims.

Which is exactly the tactic adopted by the Discovery Institute to change our culture when it comes to the issue of God and science.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

As was observed earlier, the movie is polemical. Not unlike (IMO) a Michael Moore movie.

B

Well.... I was talking about the movie, but really it could apply to any facet of life. I still think the movie is a chain yank by Stein and that he
doesn't really believe in ID.

Considering how he tricked some of the participants, I think he not only believes in ID, but he thinks the fight is a heavenly one. No tactic is too low, if it might work.

Remember who this guy worked for in the past.

Bueller? Bueller?

__________________
1984 300TD

My impression is that Ben in a true believer. Maybe for him, the connection to the holocaust, is more real than some of you can appreciate.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

The connection of Darwinism to the holocaust is the same connection to capitalism. Do we need to ban capitalism because of the holocaust?