Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Anyone Catch The ID "Debate" on Larry King Last Night?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:29 PM
Original message
Did Anyone Catch The ID "Debate" on Larry King Last Night?
The ID proponents basically got their lunch handed to them. Deepak Chopra did his usual Jeckyl & Hyde routine, making a sensible point followed by some weird-ass shit.

Best was when the scientists debunked the message control crapola that they were in "a panic." Also, they pointed out that the IDers have NO scientific evidence to present.

King seemed mildly annoyed with the IDers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NoodleBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. got a transcript anywhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I looked at the CNN site...couldn't find one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Several years ago they did a Firing Line debate
I think it was Firing Line. Wm. Buckley was on the ID side, figures, with asshat Philip Johnson of the Berkeley law school and Michael Behe and a few others against Barry Lynn, Eugenie Scott, and some others. Michael Kinsley moderated. It was really great.

Glad to hear even L. King made some sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Firing Line debate *was* great.
The guy who came off the best on that debate was Rev. Barry Lynn, a non-scientist. He creamed the ID side with calm, cool, unflappable logic. Americans United is very, very lucky to have the Rev. Lynn.

The guy who came off the worst was Buckley who was clearly out of his element and kept spewing rubbish. David Berlinsky (sp?), an engineer, was also very bad, argumentative and ill-behaved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I forget which it was
One of the supporters of science looked at Buckely and said, "Bill, I'm surprised to see you over there."

Berlinksy. What an arrogant moron. He didn't even address any of the points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DIKB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Their entire argument
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 04:43 PM by DIKB
lies in the fact that evolution is a theory. It's how they slime their way in, the ambiguity of the term. Sadly there is NOTHING to substantiate it beyond other outrageous, unproven theories.

Such as, I believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn created all life with the magic of her horn. "The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her."



Her IPUship is, of course invisible... it is only through faith that we can see Her divine pinkness.

It is a theory, and can't be disproven. Now I DEMAND you teach it in school.


The New Revised Amalgamated Standard Creed
We believe in One Unicorn, The Pink, The Invisible. Creator of Uncertainty, revealed to us in the alt.atheist usenet forum - She that Raptures Socks. , She will smite those that mock Her brethren. Others believe baloney, we too will join the feast. We shall eat our fill, yea every belly shall be full of ham and pineapple pizza. Her Revelations show us the folly of all Religions. Spread Her Word.



I quote from Hoofprints 4:14 (by the prophet Ixian):

Yea, and I was given by inspiration that She was
next to me, and I could touch Her, being the loyal
servant, and I laid my hand upon Her mane, and
She *was* Pink. She was not pink, She was not
colourless, but She *felt* Pink, and I was thus
overcome. I awoke later with a hangover, but I
knew She was *yet* Pink, but invisible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I am so dense. Until I read your post, I thought this thread
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 05:18 PM by TheDebbieDee
was about ID cards! I was thinking, "Why the fock are scientists debating national ID cards?"

ETA: ID = Intelligent Design
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm just as dense as you are.
Can't keep up with all the acronyms.
(Is that the right word?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It starts with their not knowing the definition of the word *theory*
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 04:54 PM by stopbush
when used in a scientific context:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

The asshats on the ID side of the argument equate theory with conjecture...and most of the lame-brained US populace buys it. How hard is it to understand that the same word has different meanings? If you use the word "can" around an IDer do they always assume you're talking about a storage device?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TlalocW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. We need to get the vocabulary right
When you say unproven theories, you mean hypotheses. You can't let ID be called a theory - even an unproved one. That's where IDers sneak in - by saying, "Evolution is just a theory."

When a scientist says, "I have a theory," it's not the same as saying, "I have a hunch." It means, "I had a hypothesis that I developed after observing phenomena. I then tested it in accordance with the scientific method - made adjustments and re-tested the new adjusted as needed, collected data, and submitted them to my peers who were able to duplicate my work."

In science, theory essentially means fact - or at least the closest to fact that we can get as if something comes along that totally throws this theory for a loop, we'll start over.

TlalocW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. You even start out wrong. Evolution is a FACT evidenced by a physical
fossil record. And that physical record points to a Natural Law or Principle we can call Evolution.

Darwinism is a theory.

It's a flawed theory that reflects the Philosophy of Materialism that ruled at the time it became popular.

Darwinims is NOT the de facto theory of Evolution.

Materialsim is NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science.

And Athetheism has no place being taught in school to any degree just as THEISM has no place being taught in school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. I have yet to hear ID explained WITHOUT using the words "evolution"...
... "Darwin," "natural selection," etc.

There's just no substance to it at all. Take away the snipes at evolution, and there's no "there" there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC