Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.
...
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Dr. Robert Stadler from Atlas Shrugged is a classic example.
And when you croak, we'll eat you. And we might even bring a linen tablecloth and candelabra for the feast.
For a person to stop and actually take a look at nature, the heavens, the universe even man/woman one would have to question natural selection even through logical thinking. My question: When anything is designed it is made to work in a specific way correct? So you wish for one to believe everything around us "JUST" happened through an evolutionary process? So much for man made science.
If we took some current animals and placed them on an isolated island for a million years or so, do you think that they would not be biological changes?
I disagree. I have actually stopped, and stooped, to look at nature. I have spent many nights in the wilderness under the stars, or with three inches of rain and gale winds. It is a wondrous thing to behold. But it does not lead me to the conclusions you reach.
(I suspect we have different world views.)
Why?
My question: When anything is designed it is made to work in a specific way correct? So you wish for one to believe everything around us "JUST" happened through an evolutionary process?
Not everything, only living things. And only because that's what the evidence shows. Our backs are badly designed for a upright posture, so what does this imply ... adaptation or an incompetent designer? Our eyes are badly designed ... why should an octopus have better designed eyes than man? If man is supposed to be created "in the image and likeness of God," why the second rate eyes? Did God create octopodes with better eyes than He Himself has? On the other hand, if eyes evolved, something for which we have much evidence, these questions vanish.
So much for man made science.
No, but so much for your caricature of it.
I guess ignorance is bliss, at least for now. I just pray you wise up before your final day.
"I personally have seen American of course,..."
American is not a language.
Tagline: the bible is either 100% true, or in it's very nature it is 100% a lie
People who live in glass houses shouldn't...
I thought the subject was ID. Was I on the wrong thread?
So did you read the material, or not?
This is getting funny. I'm having a belly laugh here.
I give you a link showing 700 scientists, and then I give you another link showing over 50 scientists, and you give me the credentials for only a couple, that you SAY are not worthy, & that's supposed to mean something??
OK, OK. Since I'm so nice, here's 400 more scientists, so you can pick a couple out and tell me something that wrong with them. I'm still laughing over all this.
Ready?
Here goes:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
P.S. Let's not forget what's most important of all. How many are named Steve? :)
ID'ers have ZERO scientific credibility and are a laughingstock. Rule of the Sheeple indeed.
If you wish to believe you came from a drip and evolved from an ape then so be it but don't push your ideas onto me. :)
SO you are admitting man isn't perfect? I already know the answer but thanks for making my point in a very long roundabout way. :)
Yes they do.
The evidence of this is the attempts to use ERV processes to insert missing protein sequences into people with genetic diseases. The small number of attempts to do this have activated oncogenes, and that's why this technique is so dangerous.
It is true that the oncogenes that were activated were located in a single place. But that only proves that out of innumerable individual insertions in each patient, it managed to insert in the "right" location in a minority of patients. If ERVs always inserted in identical locations, then ALL such patients would have oncogenes activated, or none of them would. But the results show that only a small number are activated, which demonstrates random insertions, and disproves your hypothesis that ERV insertions in primates and humans were separate infections.
Also, if ERV gene always inserted at the same locations, then why aren't the primate/human DNA sequences populated with ERV sequences in an identical pattern? Instead, the pattern diverges in accordance with presumed species divergence dates derived from morphological information. Indeed, the number of identical insertions are proportional to the time since divergence.
You obviously understand the technical issues well. Why are you abusing your knowledge to promote ignorance (besides the obvious temptation to profit from promoting such ignorance among the masses)?
Don't tread my right to believe the way I wish to believe either. It is the Atheist that tries to strip the rights of believers not vice versa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.