Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
I'd like to show where the evos stopped thinking but one has to start to think before one can stop.
One of the ultimately stupid-est tenets of evolution is that everything happend through natural processes, yet so many exceptions have to be made to these natural processes that it becomes a series of miracles without God.
One incredibly cephalic evo stated that "if it happened, it was natural. Therefore everything happened naturally."
With thinkers like that you have no need for dummies.
Yeah, they do. 'Intelligent Design' is merely a devout wish that at some time in the future there might be a theory. There is no current body of valid scientific work in the field of ;'Intelligent Design'.
Horse manure. Creationism requires "Faith" in the "capital F" sense -- belief in the absence of (sometimes in opposition to) any evidence. Science, including evolution, requires only "faith" in the "confidence in something" sense. Evolution has abundant evidence available which any person can examine, verify, and judge for themselves. By describing both *qualitatively* different kinds of belief with the very same word, you disingenuously blur the very real difference in the nature of the two outlooks.
Darwinism is not reproducible science. Darwin may claim to be consistent with Scientific fact, but it is not based on reproducible Science.
Oh, puh-leaze. Of course it is. There are countless reproducible experiments and observations in evolution. Furthermore, a science does not need to be able to "reproduce" everything in order to be valid science -- cosmologists can't experimentally make stars, planets, and solar systems, but that doesn't mean it's not a proper science.
People who make the "reproducible" complaint about evolution both don't understand how many evolutionary principles *are* reproducible, and overestate the requirement for reproducibility in the sciences.
Reproducible *experiments* are only one way that findings can be independently verified. There are many others which serve just as well.
Finally, what truly makes something a science is not whether it can be "reproduced", but whether it explains observations, makes specific predictions about future observations or experiments (experimental results are just another form of observation), and (key point here) whether it is *falsifiable* -- it must be open to some sort of conclusive disproof if, indeed, it turns out not to be correct.
My college science classes required an evolutionary viewpoint to attain a passing grade, period.
As it should be -- in a science class. Whether you like it or not, evolution *is* the scientific viewpoint at this time. Not teaching it in a science class -- or giving a passing grade to someone who rejects learning it -- would be a dereliction of the teacher's duty to teach science.
You couldn't introduce other faith-based view points, based on science, if they differed from Darwinist dogma.
If you could actually come up with a "faith-based view point based on *science*", then you'd have something original. Feel free to present it, if you have one.
No Creationist wants to eliminate free and open discourse. No Creationist wants to prevent introduction of Scientific evidence on the origins of the Universe and man, even if they disagree with the theories offered with that evidence.
With all due respect, you're quite naive. There most certainly *are* creationists who want to do those exact things.
However, Darwinists can't tolerate dissent, because much of their "science" rests upon a foundation of half-truths, misinterpretations, and lies.
Gosh, really? Feel free to point some out, if you think you have some.
Note -- be very, very careful before you reply. If your material comes from some creationist source, it's very likely erroneous.
In fact, your very assertion shows signs of having just as poor a grasp of science as the specific "anti-evolution" points usually do -- far from being unable to "tolerate dissent", the whole *scientific method* is based on *strong* dissent. The entire peer-reviewed publishing process in scientific journals is geared towards inviting as *much* dissent as possible. Scientists publish papers so that they can see whether their work will be able to survive everything that everyone else can throw at it. It's easy to spot a non-scientist by the way that they aren't even aware of this process. Believe me, if "much of evolution rests upon a foundation of half-truths, misinterpretations, and lies", then most published papers on evolution would have been savaged by other members of the scientific community long before the creationists could ever get around to it. Exposing shoddy, unfounded, or mistaken work is *exactly* what the scientific method is designed to do.
So if you actually have some flaws in mind that have somehow escaped the scientific community, do *please* let us know what they are. Go for it.
and I listened to so much of this . . . demagoguery (( link )) - - -
that now, with my democratic views, I can no longer stand it,'' Itar-Tass news agency
Hi everyone . . .
I am f.Christian - - -
a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist - - -
not any more since . . . FR saved me (( link )) === now I hate the stuff // lies ! !
Is '2+2=5' protected speech in a math class?
Science is not subject to the first amendment. You may deplore the law of gravity, but if you fall off a tall building, you'll die anyway.
So you're saying that if I calculated the dynamics of the solar system using Newton's equations of motion, I'd be badly wrong?
Actually, this is incorrect. If there were "supernatural" monkeying with with the world, science would be able to detect it by observation, and would be able to determine many things about the times and manners in which such supernatural exceptions to "everyday" laws occurred. It would, in a sense, be able to learn quite a bit about such "supernatural" occurrences.
Contrary to popular belief, science does not presuppose non-supernatural causes for everything. That would, indeed, not be scientific. It just looks that way sometimes because so far, there's no clear evidence that anything "supernatural" is taking place or has taken place. Observations are so far consistent with "ordinary" causes and effects. At this point an extraordinary hypothesis like "it appears a miracle has occurred" would require either extraordinary evidence, or a large accumulation of smaller evidence.
But there would be nothing unscientific about concluding that supernatural forces were at work if that's what the evidence indicated.
Science can't figure out how one simple single cell was able to materialize out of non-living matter, but evolution should be taught as "probable" in the classroom?
Until 'Science' can provide a sniff, even one iota of proof that the Universe overcame infinitesimal-to-the-nth-degree odds to "evolve" any life over the millenia -- much less a culmination resulting in homo-sapien, it's fantasy best-case scenerio remains laughable crock of sanctimonious, delusional horse dung.
We haven't been able to figure out yet how the Shuttle crashed, so let's stop teaching physics.
Until 'Science' can provide a sniff, even one iota of proof that the Universe overcame infinitesimal-to-the-nth-degree odds to "evolve" any life over the millenia -- much less a culmination resulting in homo-sapien, it's fantasy best-case scenerio remains laughable crock of sanctimonious, delusional horse dung.
Neither you, nor any creationist, has the slightest clue how to calculate these 'odds'. And scatology is no substitute for argument.
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.