thanks again misterd. you teach a subject that I got a C- in, and I cheated through most of it.

Good choices on the game consoles

We need a new forum rule:

Comprehension Rule - When debating another poster using a link to another sight as your argument is unacceptable. If you are without a grasp on the material then you should not be debating in the first place, and if you do understand the material then you owe your debate partner the respect of a tailored response to the issues being discussed. Citing information with a link, quoting somebody, or linking to a news article is of course acceptable, however you should summarize the information and state how you believe it relates to the debate.

Sqrl what are you talking about? ie. what ruffled your feathers?

I mean things have started to calm down

Its something that has bothered me over several debates, the recent rules change just sort brought the two ideas together and a solution naturally followed.

I think its a good rule, but I wouldn't mind hearing some opposing views. I doubt I've thought of everything.

misterd said: Slimebeast said: I haven't dug deep into this movie, but if it really is propaganda and uses cheap tricks, I'd say that's part of what we ID-supporters need as a counter weapon against Dawkin's (the intelligent idiot) atheistic crusade against religion and faith. First, Dawkin's is respected for his scientific research, but his militant atheism is not embraced by the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists would take issue with science being used to make any theological judgements. Second, I'm fairly certain the Good Designer would not endorse the "by any means neccessary" method of spreading The Word. Third, ID proponents claim that ID is a scientific concept. If so, there are legitimate ways to introduce the idea and confront conventional orthodoxy.  That's what I tried to illustrate in my post about Lynn Margulis. At the moment, the majority of the leaders of the ID movement are engaging in cheap hucksterism. If your goal is to put God into the science classroom, then be honest and admit it, or you are just as sinful as they are.

I wasn't arguing that "the Word" per se should be spread through propaganda or "by any means neccessary". Just counter cheap jerks like Dawkins. 

 

The_vagabond7 said: I really hope that last post was a joke. Inferring that propaganda is a necessary tool against science.

No. See above, his first sentence. And sometimes you need propaganda to counter propaganda. Dawkins is full of shit, making ridicule of the whole "first cause"/God concept, placing it side by side with Unicorns and the Spaghetti monster.

 

Sqrl said: We need a new forum rule: Comprehension Rule - When debating another poster using a link to another sight as your argument is unacceptable. If you are without a grasp on the material then you should not be debating in the first place, and if you do understand the material then you owe your debate partner the respect of a tailored response to the issues being discussed. Citing information with a link, quoting somebody, or linking to a news article is of course acceptable, however you should summarize the information and state how you believe it relates to the debate.

Sounds good to me; I had some reservations but then I realized that "when debating another poster" negated them.  This rule does not apply to ordinary discussion, although the other rule about not link-bombing still applies there to some extent. 

One thing: I am currently possessed by the proofreading fiend.

Comprehension Rule - When debating another poster, using a link to another site as your argument is unacceptable.  If you are without a grasp on the material then you should not be debating in the first place, and if you do understand the material then you owe your debate partner the respect of a tailored response to the issues being discussed.  Citing information with a link, quoting somebody, or linking to a news article is of course acceptable; however, you should summarize the information and state how you believe it relates to the debate.

1 double puctuation correction; 1 spelling correction; 1 punctuation suggestion.  Also 1 vote in favor of the new rule.

Slimebeast said: misterd said: Slimebeast said: I haven't dug deep into this movie, but if it really is propaganda and uses cheap tricks, I'd say that's part of what we ID-supporters need as a counter weapon against Dawkin's (the intelligent idiot) atheistic crusade against religion and faith. First, Dawkin's is respected for his scientific research, but his militant atheism is not embraced by the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists would take issue with science being used to make any theological judgements. Second, I'm fairly certain the Good Designer would not endorse the "by any means neccessary" method of spreading The Word. Third, ID proponents claim that ID is a scientific concept. If so, there are legitimate ways to introduce the idea and confront conventional orthodoxy. That's what I tried to illustrate in my post about Lynn Margulis. At the moment, the majority of the leaders of the ID movement are engaging in cheap hucksterism. If your goal is to put God into the science classroom, then be honest and admit it, or you are just as sinful as they are. I wasn't arguing that "the Word" per se should be spread through propaganda or "by any means neccessary". Just counter cheap jerks like Dawkins. The_vagabond7 said: I really hope that last post was a joke. Inferring that propaganda is a necessary tool against science. No. See above, his first sentence. And sometimes you need propaganda to counter propaganda. Dawkins is full of shit, making ridicule of the whole "first cause"/God concept, placing it side by side with Unicorns and the Spaghetti monster.

But you're still saying it's OK to use dishonest tactics as long as the other guy is.  That means that if Dawkins can say "Hey, they started it!" then it's okay for HIM to do it; the whole thing devolves into dishonesty always being OK as long as you've been the victim of it, which everyone has on these controversial issues.  I thought it was the atheists who were supposed to be all into moral relativism?

Short version: No, no, no. Fight dishonesty with honest arguments, not dishonest ones.  (Good call, misterd; it's a bit less catchy now, but accuracy > brevity.  That's why I hate so many bumper stickers.)

Final-Fan said: Slimebeast said: No. See above, his first sentence. And sometimes you need propaganda to counter propaganda. Dawkins is full of shit, making ridicule of the whole "first cause"/God concept, placing it side by side with Unicorns and the Spaghetti monster. But you're still saying it's OK to use dishonest tactics as long as the other guy is.  That means that if Dawkins can say "Hey, they started it!" then it's okay for HIM to do it; the whole thing devolves into dishonesty always being OK as long as you've been the victim of it, which everyone has on these controversial issues.  I thought it was the atheists who were all into moral relativism?  Short version:  No, no, no.  Fight lies with truth, not lies.

I would say "fight dishonesty with honesty", as the issue of what is truth is often the heart of the debate.

In terms of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while I grant that it is an argument laden with sarcasm and ridicule, it is not one that is dishonest. It posits the very reasonable point that there are dozens of different belief systems, which makes "teaching all points of view" all but impossible. There was also an offer $1million dollars made to anyone who could empiracally prove that Jesus was not the son of the FSM, a sarcastic attack on Ken Hovind's similar offer made concerning evolution.

Again, while these are not the most high-minded attacks, they are not dishonest. Certainly many of us have used similar tactics in other debates on this board (mostly aimed at Leo-J).  Now to this you can either 1) attempt to out-sarcasm your opponent, or 2) logically dismantle the flaws in his analogy. I prefer to do both when possible, but if you want to win your argument, the second option is the only viable approach. This is why I hate the "Darwin Fish" people put on their cars, because it is done for no real reason other than to mock people of faith (many of whom are not creationists).

At no time is dishonesty a good idea, as you will eventually be called on it and not only made to look an ass, but undermine support for your side. Evolutionists are still trying to live down Haeckle's embryos and Piltdown man - one a seemingly honest error due to overenthusiasm, the other a complete fraud. Unfortunately, in an example of dishonesty, many creationists will point to these as evidence against science and evolution despite the fact that 1) no scientist uses them any more , 2) it was evolutionary scientists, not creationists, who debunked these claims of evidence. While I can understand many of the "ground troops" in creationist/ID movement not being aware, many of the movements leaders have been publicly corrected on these issues time and again, and yet still bring them up as evidence against evolution.

Two good (but mocking) videos criticizing Stein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=related

And here is a GREAT video on mutations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&feature=related

Guess the thread is coming to an end. Thanks to all to contributed, especially mistered. Great read and I enjoyed the videos.

Maybe Ben Stein really didn't know what he was getting himself into when he agreed to do the film.

I'm sure this is not the end of this debate. I think more and more people are interested in this subject, so I guess that's a good thing.