Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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

[js1138]

So? You still need to train a person to recognize handwriting.

I think the point is that a reasonably smart person can read many other people's handwriting without retraining. Not to mention excentric and arty fonts.

[js1138]

There are only 4 possible answers to the origins of God: He sprang from NOTHING (impossible since nothing cannot produce anything); He has existed eternally (impossible because of the dimension of "time" and "entropy" - the universe cannot "wind down" forever); He is an illusion (let's not even go there since this is an indefensible position); or, He was created by a creator out of nothing. Take your pick. Which is it?

If you bring logic to the dinner table, you have to eat it. If you tell me that God is outside of space and time, you violate #1.

[js1138]

Until someone finds a SCIENTIFIC refutation of it. Fairy tales about anything being possible are not such a refutation.

If ID is describing itself as science, shouldn't it be trying to falsify itself? Isn't that th way science behaves? Shouldn't ID be actively proposing research that would test the probabilities?

[js1138]

My post #5162 should have been addressed to you.

[Junior]

Recipricol placemarker.

[Right Wing Professor]

There really isn't a single useful working definition for a species

Of course there is - a set of organisms which can reproduce and produce viable offspring.

Lions and tigers, by this definition, are the same species, as are horses and zebras. Would you like to try again?

[Condorman]

Mixed critters of many stripes have produced offspring with various attenuated degrees of viability

A link for your records: Hybrid Gallery

[Nebullis]

The different species of Darwin's finches interbreed.

[exmarine]

If you bring logic to the dinner table, you have to eat it. If you tell me that God is outside of space and time, you violate #1.

Logic is all we have. Without it, we would all just make incoherent babbling noises. God is not NOTHING - Nothing is nothing. Why do you call God nothing? Even the skeptic Sartre said that without an infinite reference point, the finite is meaningless.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So can many of the newer programs. At least in the laboratory. I don't know what is available commercially. The work I did was on computer recognition of non-roman scripts. It's also much more accurate to read words than to identify individual letters.

[donh]

Your speculations are non-rational as they are not based on anything other than your wild imagination. The only rational explanations are the ones I listed. No amount of chimerical conjecture will change that.

Perhaps, than, you can tell the the essential difference, in that regard, between Berkeley's conjecture that the universe was imagined up by someone, vs. the conjecture that the universe was imagined up by God.

[donh]

Logic is all we have.

As we have just gone over, logic is not all that we have, it occupies a tiny, specialized niche in the universe of reasoning.

[donh]

The different species of Darwin's finches interbreed.

With a markedly diminished viability rate over the purebreds.

[donh]

Science is objective. If it is not objective, it is not science. Your (and other evolutionists) avowal of subjective definitions of species shows quite well that the evidence for evolution is so deficient that you need to manipulate the facts in order to support it.

Subjective/objective is not the axis in question, no matter how obtuse you insist on being about it. The axis in question is precision/imprecision. Speciation as a classification scheme is precise, but innacurate, relative speciation of variable degree is all one can actually detect in nature.

[Nebullis]

With a markedly diminished viability rate over the purebreds.

I don't think so. Why do you say this?

[Condorman]

Now you are saying that there is no evidence for mutations being due to selection pressure!

Correct. Mutations are perpetuated or eliminated by selection pressure. Where did I claim otherwise?

(Keep in mind, lurkers, that he also believes that the statement "Biological evolution can be defined as a change in allele frequency" is an evolutionist fabrication, and further, that this position is supported by this web page.)

[js1138]

Logic is all we have.

Apparently faith trumps logic, else you are left with the proposition that God, who is something, came from nothing. There is nothing in logic to distinguish between the assertion that the universe exists independently of space and time, and that God does so.

Your assertions about God are based entirely on your assertions. There are thousands of contrary assertions of faith.

[js1138]

It's also much more accurate to read words than to identify individual letters.

That's true of humans also.

[exmarine]

Perhaps, than, you can tell the the essential difference, in that regard, between Berkeley's conjecture that the universe was imagined up by someone, vs. the conjecture that the universe was imagined up by God.

Surely, you don't take Berkeley seriously, do you? If the universe is an illusion, the Berkeley's very thoughts are illusions as well and should be ignored. Taking it one step further, I would wager that Berkeley looked both ways before he crossed the street, lest he be creamed by that illusory Mack truck.

[donh]

Somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of objects that are observed to exist and asserted to be designed.

Well--actually, if I were imbarking on an ID research project, it would be to detect apparent design without the possibility of implementation. Such as by searching for God's copyright notice in the junk DNA. This bars the usual, and effective, dismissal of ID that apparent design could have resulted from natural forces.