Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Aric2000]

My last remark is for Aric2000: I'm hurt that you have not called me a fanatic on this thread. I have been called a Jesus freak for decades. I am fanatic when it comes to Christ and I would like to wear that badge of honor!

Fanatic for Christ is one thing, you see the message, the message and the words that convey it are 2 different things.

You argue well, you state your facts, you give interesting thoughts, without..... criticism I suppose.

I am awed at your fanaticism, now if only MORE christians had your kind of fanaticism and not the literal kind.

I bow to you dear lady, hands out, and hat in hand. Well stated and well said.

Wear your badge, and wear it proudly....

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the kudos and encouragement and the badge!!!

I am awed at your fanaticism, now if only MORE christians had your kind of fanaticism and not the literal kind.

You might want to amend that if you read Freeper Views on Origins (LOL!)

[Aric2000]

Better question: Do I believe the educated layman should have some sort of a veto over scientists wishing to indoctrinate his (the layman's) kids in some pet pseudoscience and quasi-religious doctrine in public schools at public expense while claiming that the doctrine is a fact and legally barring all competing theories from being taught?

And what competing scientific theory would that be?

Creationism is a RELIGIOUS theory, Evolution is a Scientific Theory. Creationism should therefore be taught in Philosophy or religious classes, Evolution should be taught in a Science class.

You wish to set up the criteria for such a religious class, please feel free, but do not try to push creationism as a scientifically proven theory, because it is NOT. Therefore, Creationism and evolution are NOT at all the same thing.

Again, CREATIONISM is religious, NO scientific basis nor theory tries to explain it, it is metaphysical, Mythical if you like. Evolution is a scientific theory, based on science and facts that are avaliable at this time, nothing metaphysical nor mythical about it. And to say otherwise is to push the limits of truthfullness to a point where it is basically lying.

All depends on what the word "is" means, when you try and force people to teach creationism in science class, because it is NOT scientific, it is religious, to play word games is a clintonian trick, the 2 subjects are 2 sides of very DIFFERENT coins. They have NO relationship to each other, except for the fact they try to explain the same thing.

[MattAMiller]

TalkOrigins is not a legitimate source for scientific facts. That nonsense has been refuted:

Where's the refutation? You have new species with more chromosones than previous species. That's what you asked to see.

[Aric2000]

Oh no, I do not wish to change a bit of what I said, I think that your logic with the 7 days is wonderful, I do not agree with some of it, but your spiritual thinking is so close to the mark of what I believe, that I will not argue it. Funny that we come close to the same conclusions, but from totally different sources. Interesting.

Oh, no, I would NOT change a thing that I said. I am NOT an ID'r because ID CANNOT be proven scientifically, but I would LOVE to discuss this in a philosophy class!!

Oh, yes, you are quite the philosopher, I like it, I like it a LOT. Religion and philosophy do not belong in a science class, you understand that, but, sad to say, a lot do not.

[gore3000]

It also should be noted that there were numerous mutations resulting from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. None have been reported to have been favorable.

If you had been paying attention, you might have noticed there are other kinds and sources of genetic variation.

There certainly are. Another example is the sun which causes cancer of the skin. What radioactive induced mutation shows is that changing the genetic arrangement of organisms at random is not good. This is what evolution is trying to sell the public and it is totally false.

[gore3000]

The architecture was magnificent and the history was powerful, it practically eminated from the ground,

Problem with the above is that most of the great architecture in Turkey is from before the Turks. I am sure that the hovels were built by Turks but the magnificence of Hagia Sophia is Christian. I saw a good example of Islamic and Christian architecture in Cordoba. There the muslims had built one of the largest mosques in Islam. When the Christians conquered Cordoba they built a Cathedral smack in the middle of it. The Cathedral which is not by far one of the great ones in Christendom is much more impressive that the islamic mosque.

[gore3000]

I like the Turkish people, you obviously hate them.

Your buddy Darwin hated them and wanted them destroyed as an inferior race. That someone points out that their accomplishments are nil is not hatred, it is just a fact. That someone states that their accomplishments are far, far inferior to those of Christianity, is not hatred, is just pointing out the truth.

[gore3000]

Universal gravitation failed the perihelion of mercury experiment and had to be revised; because it now fails the dark matter experiment, serious physicists are proposing yet another revision; and it is now beginning to come under revisionist attack from the forces of quantum gravity.

Does that mean that you are going to jump off a 100 story building and fall up? Are you willing to give it a go?

[gore3000]

So no Miller is just trying for headlines, -me-

Miller has no need of headlines.

Of course he needs headlines. He is a prolific book writer and obviously wants more income. That you are unaware of it shows he does indeed need the publicity.

Behe made numerous predictions about explanations of verious apparently-too-complex-to-evolve biological machines that would never be published in technical journals. Some of which had already been published when his book was written. Apparently bench-checking was not his forte.

Attacking the man with vague accusations which of course cannot be refuted because they are so vague. The fact is that his book 'Darwin's Black Box' has gone through numerous printings and has elicited numerous scientific reviews. His assertion that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and had to have been intelligently designed has been the subject of much scientific experimentation. Such experimentation and research has shown that the bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, if any one of the 40+ genes that make up the system is knocked out, the entire system fails to work at all.

(and BTW the argument of the secretory system is not his originally so he may also be guilty of plagiarism).

Fat chance. Miller's books are top-heavy with current cites from the journals.

Well in his current article, Miller does not give acknowledgements to anyone. Here is an article from an Ian Musgrave from March 2000 which makes the same arguments. Methinks he is a plagiarist.

[gore3000]

It is simply a scientific theory in which the vast majority

Evolution is a theory with no evidence for it and humongous amounts of evidence against it. That is why you have to appeal to authority instead of to facts.

[gore3000]

Germany has the advantage of getting their form of government from us,

They were doing fine even before that. They were doing fine even before there was a united Germany. The only thing the Turks have ever been famous for is for spreading death and destruction.

[gore3000]

Evolution generally requires the presence of life, and it's a fairly safe assumption that the presence of life will lead to evolution.

It only leads to evolution if God is dismissed out of hand as a possible source of Creation. That is why evolution and abiogenesis are irretrivably connected. They are both totally materialistic/atheistic theories which feed off each other by attempting to deny the existence of God by trying to explain life by wholly materialistic means.

[gore3000]

Questions of purpose or destination fall outside biology completely.

And what is 'survival of the fittest' other than an assignment of purpose and destination? By your own terms evolution is not science.

[gore3000]

If evolution never existed, then you would NOT be here.

Showing the totally materialistic/atheistic beliefs of evolutionists. There is an alternative which you dismiss out of hand, the alternative is called God.

[GregoryFul]

Perhaps scientists will someday demonstrate that "intelligence" is a property of sufficiently complex systems (brains, computers, ant colonies, etc.) -- including the complex ecosystem of Earth.

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers! Thank you again so very much for the kudos (blushing here...)

I am NOT an ID'r because ID CANNOT be proven scientifically, but I would LOVE to discuss this in a philosophy class!!

For anyone interested, there are excellent philosophy threads on Free Republic and wonderful debaters, e.g. betty boop, cornelis, Phaedrus. A few examples:

On Debate and Existence: Excerpts from Voegelin

Stephen Wolfram on Natural Selection

IMHO, any offering of proof for intelligent design that uses a process of elimination will be written off by most scientists to the anthropic principle. However, that dismissal would not apply where an I.D. hypothesis can be evidenced empirically.

It appears that I.D. recognizes this challenge and is beginning a response: Becoming a Disciplined Science:Prospects, Pitfalls, and a Reality Check for ID: Dembski, William A.

[Junior]

The only thing the Turks have ever been famous for is for spreading death and destruction.

They did introduce Indian mathematics to Europe.

[Junior]

And what is 'survival of the fittest' other than an assignment of purpose and destination?

It is simply a statement made from an observation. All things being equal, those most adapted to a particular environmental niche will most likely survive long enough to pass their genes along because they have an advantage over those not so well adapted. There is no "purpose or destination" stated. What would be the alternative? Survival of the least fit? Survival of everything? Neither of these are borne out by observation.