Member since Apr 30, 2014



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “S.C. education commission passes pro-creationism vote to 'teach the controversy'

I did read the "flagellum unspun" once, and need to again, but ... (q)"that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (r)" Yes, it is true." "Design does remain a possibility" I also read that I.D. {tries to introduce a designer that bends or breaks the natural laws} (I don't have the exact quote) and I have never read that, nor believe that myself, and if human being survive long enough, we would eventually acquire the technology to build a cell. If we were designed, then it would need to be within the laws of physics and nature. I think that is possible. I have a lot more reading to do, but I do not see why an I.D. of living cells with the complete sterilization of religious ideology, should not be introduced as an alternative to evolution, until evolution is proven and becomes a fact, if that day ever comes. There needs to be critical thinking in science, and Origin should be no exception. Can it be taught without religion? I believe so. I believe teachers are disciplined enough, and hopefully society also. I still have a lot to read, and don't know when I will be back, but I have tried to be more respectful, and I hope that is returned. Those first to statements I copied/pasted were back to back, the 1st was a quote, and the 2nd was the authors response.

0 of 3 people like this.
Posted by jmichaelbaker96 on May 5, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Re: “S.C. education commission passes pro-creationism vote to 'teach the controversy'

Dr. Hurd,
I had chose not to waste my time here any more because I felt I had already asked plenty of questions about bio-irrudibility and etc. I read your post in my in E-Mail in- box, and I only read the "going fishing sunday" post, because I was afraid you would piss me off if I read any others. I appreciate your bringing me something to challenge what I had read, and will do so when I have an opportunity.
Yes, I am a believer in God, but I am a believer in science also. I am confident I represent a portion of the general public that has a decent, respectable education and questions evolution. Although I came to this thread to support other theories being taught, I was also looking to find out if my point of view was wrong, or irrational.
I have chosen to educate myself further on "entropy" before I take what I had learned as evidence of I.D. anymore. In all fairness, the article you sent me to did say there were many published articles that were unknowingly incorrect on it. You may find my type of person quite often, especially in the light of recent controversy that involves more of the public's opinion.
I will also check out those threads to the answer to Mr. Behe's book and if what I read is convincing, I will be back to let you know. This is exactly what I was looking for in the first place. It is good to know that you have actually researched what the other side is presenting, for that gives your opinion much more value, to me anyway.
I hope you enjoy your trip. My apologies if my composition is weak. I am in a hurry.
Thank You,
J. Michael Baker

0 of 3 people like this.
Posted by jmichaelbaker96 on May 5, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Re: “S.C. education commission passes pro-creationism vote to 'teach the controversy'

Mr. Hurd,

i am going to answer your challenge of presenting some of what I see as evidence of I.D. in an attempt to actually get some answers to how evolution can account for (in any hypothetical way) to these puzzling observations. This is an attempt to salvage something from this. A lot of what I am going to ask about does come from Behe's book, so if you have not read any of it, could you try to familiarize yourself with it, if possible? They are decent questions, and fair questions. I said I would investigate more (a lot more) and learn more about entropy. This answers your charge of a unwillingness and closed minded person Ya Mon. I also said I would not use any biased ( Creationist or Evolutionist) material when I did. Unlike Mcneills evolution-positive site, the other was a "creationist bashing" site and even you have to admit, vulnerable to bias. I am going to take my time and try and present this in a respectful, decent manner. I do not know what this "Hitler" creationist thing you are accusing me of. I just stated something that I have observed myself. I know you think I am some "creationist" sponsor, but if you noticed I said I.D. and I do that for a reason. I am not affiliated with ant I.D. folks neither, I say I.D. because it is the Intelligent Design of the Origin of life that I see as the only rational explanation.

0 of 3 people like this.
Posted by jmichaelbaker96 on May 2, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Re: “S.C. education commission passes pro-creationism vote to 'teach the controversy'

I did read M. McNeills Research, so you can keep making your assumptions, and lie while you call me a liar. You still refuse to address my questions to you about anything, then just attack me in vain attempts to give yourself credibility. Did you read these books you attacked and made judgments on? Like I said, You just keep attacking my "right" to question the authority from which you make your statements. Although in retrospect, I admit my shortcomings, yet you fail to do so. (because you have none, right) One of the (the main) reasons I said I was educated and brought the E.E.G into it was so you could feel that I had enough Biological and physiological knowledge to understand you when you explained your point of view. Why don't you try that next time someone questions why it is you believe this theory and not just "cause I said so." I admit that in prior recent posts, most of, if not all the evolutionist were not nearly as formally educated as yourself, and I was wrong to assume that. Why don't you try treating people like human beings, and if there is something to what you say, then maybe you can enlighten them. Is this how you taught students in school? Probably not because the proof was easy to show or in teaching evolution, it was unopposed at the time.

I am sure if you read the books you make negative claims about, you would have started by stating that, and then attacked me based on that. All your posts are based on assumptions about me, and enlightens the probability that your "Definitive Proof" more than likely is too. Your attacks on me only show your lack of integrity as an authority and a professional.

I was actually worried I might get my tail end handed to me, after I seen your educational background. I expected something like " Mr. Behe claims...but failed to take into evident by..." something of that nature. What I got from you was just plain (plane?) sad, and either you are just an ignorant person as far any social decency, have absolutely no proof of what you say, or both. Your absolute attacks on me as your only answers to my posts, and your disrespectfulness only reflects on you. People who read this will see the only defense of an educated man for Evolution is to attack the intelligence of anyone who asks. Why don't you take a page from Mr. Mcneill and how he uses his professional standards to address those in conflict with him. I kept reading all the comments and respected his responses for that alone.

I know I said I was done, so don't bother calling me a liar for that. You just keep giving such absurd reasons attempting to sway people from reading the whole thread of our posts. You make yourself an easy target by trying to make me one.

0 of 2 people like this.
Posted by jmichaelbaker96 on May 2, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Re: “S.C. education commission passes pro-creationism vote to 'teach the controversy'

Real Quick- Rational Dood, Thanks for the long paragraphs about my English errors. I only do a quick edit of my post. But I can ACCEPT (except?) the criticism. I must say that When they BELIEVED the Earth was the center of the universe, somebody BELIEVED it was not and set out to prove it. A hypothesis is a belief, based on observations and experiments are then constructed to set out to prove it. ( i.e I believe those puffy things are made of water because they are always there when it rains) and (I believe the clouds that are made of water came from water on the ground) What you said is just a manipulation of the truth in order to make I.D. pursuers (who are scientist, and you should know that) look erroneous. I like the way you spent many paragraphs going "look, look he's stupid" because I wrote except instead of accept. There will be actual human beings that read this, and I am sure they will relate to my errors better than your arrogance. Good luck with your future endeavors. (You do know dood is actually spelled dude, right.)

0 of 4 people like this.
Posted by jmichaelbaker96 on May 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM

All Comments »

Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS