Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
Let's be honest now Dan. Criticism by peers isn't the issue. Criticism of the theory is discouraged and even enforced by law in the public schools. A system as sound and proven as evolution shouldn't be afraid of criticism. You people feel free to criticize creationism. Now what if we used the power of the government to stop critcism and smugly claim that peers criticize the system regularly? Where is your sense of fairness? Double standards seem to be the rule here.
Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools.
Did I leave out the word "public?" Those right-wing fundamentalists, People for the American Way commissioned a survey within the last two years that showed parents who favored creation wanted both views taught in schools while parents who favored evolution wanted evolution only. Now doesn't that tell you something about the indefensible nature of evolution?
Hume (1711-1776) lived before almost all modern science, and all of evolutionary theory, so I'm not sure he's the best person to look to for a balanced consideration of religion versus science.
You're contradicting your buddies.
Peppered moths aren't "fake", they're perfectly real.
Why are you defending a proven fraud? Peppered Moths were glued on a tree to prove evolution was happening before our eyes. This is well known. Search on "Peppered+Moths+Fraud."
I think that, at best, Hume might have agreed that it was useful to believe in a Creator, not reasonable. And while Hume certainly said that some sorts of reason - determining causal relationships in particular - were logically unreliable, this is hardly the same as suggesting that all reason is unreliable, nor is it predicated at all on his belief in the absence of a Creator - his discussion of the limits of reason neither requires the presence or absence of a Creator.
"An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
"Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
Now how should I characterize this smug remark? Arrogance? Avoiding the question? Maybe you're serious.
The Straw Man fallacy is pretty basic
If I had time I'd go back to the beginning of this thread to see how many times the straw man has been invoked. It seems like that is the canned answer to all objections to evolutionary guesswork.
Okay, *thirty* yard penalty for overweening conceit...
It's not bragging when it's true. I not only charge that amount and get it, I am extremely selective of my clientelle. Is it conceit on my part or class envy on yours?
What have you got? "Well, it says here in this book written from Nth-generation oral histories that might have gotten a bit garbled along the way..."
Now this particular display of myopia is one of the reasons evos have trouble debating. Which is it? You don't understand the position of your opponents or you don't want to understand them.
Phaedrus, for example, does not take Genesis into account. Evolution's problems are myriad; logical, philosophical, physical, metaphysical, evidential, scientific and political.
It's only a false dichotomy if there is a third choice. What is the third choice? Matter was either created or it was not created.
I see you have to translate me so the rest of the evos can understand. So much for "think for yourself."
You may be interested to know that a personal insult is exactly that, personal. Calling an argument lame is not a personal insult. Claiming that darwinists have difficulty with logic is not a personal insult.
Phaedrus, thanks for following this one. Did he answer the question?
Me Are you by chance a member of the Flat Earth Society?
You No. Are you by chance trying to say evolution "science" was responsible for proving the earth to be a slightly malformed sphere? What's your point? What shall we all believe from the Fictitious Evolution Society? What do you really know for sure with all that static between your antennae?
Nope. I was attempting to point out how absurd you first statement was. Just because something has been "common" knowledge for centuries does not mean that it is correct.
Heck, if a better theory replaces evolution because of newly discovered data, I am all for it. However, evolution is the best model we have to date to fit the current data set.
BTW, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept the data that has been uncovered to date.
Are you by chance a member of the Flat Earth Society?
We were discussing cosmology (e.g., origin of the universe), not evolution. Evolution would still be a science whether the universe was made by the Big Bang, by God, or by the pink unicorns.
Evolution depends as little on where matter "originally" came from as does meteorology, rocket science, or auto repair.
If cosmology has nothing to do with Evolution, then the two recent prime proponents of Evolution, Dawkins and the late Gould, should be entirely written off. This because Dawkins concludes, firmly, that there is no God on the basis of his "understanding" of Evolution. Or he's a liar. There is no doubt that he's an Atheist. And Gould because he was a huge proponent of the universe, everything, having arisen by chance. As science, the "chance" so-called argument is just plain garbage. This is blatently obvious to anyone to makes any sort or remote claim to some measure of intelligence.
If you can suggest, even flippantly, that the universe was made by pink unicorns, and that this issue of origins relates not at all to the grand claims made by Evolutionists, then you are running on pure unadulterated ego. The credibility of all aspects of science depends upon where matter came from and what it is. All aspects. And do you really believe that all that elegant math and all those elegant physical laws that the mathematicians and physicists spend lifetimes discovering "just happened"? If you do, then you are a pure fool. "Just happened" has no scientific meaning, or any other for that matter. It is an expression of ignorance.
Evolution does indeed depend upon what matter is and where it came from. But at the heart of all material is the immaterial. Ask the physicists, those with an intimate knowledge of quantum mechanics, not your average auto mechanic or Evolutionist. Ask them about John Bell and Alain Aspect. Here's some news to all of biology from the world of the physicists. Billiard Ball Materialism is stone dead, as dead as yesterday's coffee. Stone dead. Those who continue to express their faith in it, and that's all that it is, are exhibiting their ignorance. And that is also why the Evolutionists are sometimes accused of operating on the basis of faith.
Define Evolution for us, hotshot, and if it's anything more than "change over time", which means nothing, we'll have a hard look at it. It's a good thing, if true, that Evolution is backing away from grand claims about origins and abiogenesis but someone should inform the Talk Origins website people. I don't believe it's true.
Peppered moths aren't "fake", they're perfectly real. It might help if you learned more about the topic before you expose more of your ignorance. And it might help your case if your proferred "evidence" against evolution didn't turn out to be mostly imaginary prejudice.
Yes, peppered moths is a fake example of Evolution, either Macro or so-called Micro. Within their genetic structure are genes for the expression of either mostly black or mostly gray wings and which predominated at any time was an apparent function of the environment. Nothing new, certainly no new species and NOT an example of Evolution. So, forget it AND take it out of the textbooks. Here you are exposed as the ignorant one.
Glib crap is just glib crap, no matter what its length. That is what you're producing, in volume.
Good point. One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is that kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from a logical proof. In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are scientific theories -- logical and falsifiable explanations of the available data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).
He's glib, but that is all.
For you to accuse Dataman of dishonesty is a wholly unjustified slur that in fact reflects poorly upon your honesty.
Wouldn't that designer be way, way too complicated to occur naturally? And wouldn't that indicate that the designer had been designed to design? And what about *that* designer? And that designer's designer.... Before long, the universe is filled with designers who can create life out of nothingness, as it could be no other way.... By concluding that complexity=design, we conclude that those complex designers must have been created by even more complex designers, ad infinitum.
The complexity of life is not in itself the reason ID advocates say it shows evidence of design. It has to do with specific characteristics, such as the bacterial flagellum that create significant problems if you assume it arose by random mutations. See post 366.
If you think people are logged on to this site 24 hours a day, waiting for your next moronic post, you need to get a better grip on reality.
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.