Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
"You know, since you're not a scientist by your own admission, why should we listen to what you have to say on the subject? You really shot yourself in the foot on this one."
Not really. I'm not a scientist, so I rely on scientists to explain things to me. When it comes to the Theory of Evolution, my understanding comes from the work of scientists in the field.
Others use other sources. For some, a book written around 3-4000 years ago to explain things to nomadic shepherds will suffice to explain things. I guess I'm after more up-to-date information.
I see you mock me sir. Call it what you will, it's tentacles pervade your brain. But because they pervade your brain, they can keep you from ever perceiving it.
Do you doubt me. Then PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!!
Yes, I read Cosmic Speghetti.
Those operating with all their brain got the humor but also the point that the author missed.
Shalom.
The problem is that there are only two possible competing theories. This issue is completely black and white - binary.
Either things gradually morphed (or "evolved") into more complex things, or someone designed them. There are hybrid theories of course, but few of them are genuine and are used more as a debate tool for "fence post sitters".
Darwinianism is to evolution theory what creationism is to ID. We are really talking evolution vs ID, and those are the only possibilities within the realm of human comprehension that I am aware of.
Both require faith. Proof for one is proof against the other - and vice versa.
You're right. I guess I will stop posting about politics on FR also since I am not a politician.
Osama, you can do whatever you want. I won't comment since I'm not a terrorist.
Shalom.
You could just post: "ID v Evo: Discuss" and get the exact same responses.
These threads never discuss what is actually in the article. It's just the same people posting the same things until the next crevo thread pops up. Then, they do it again.
Rinse, repeat.
So, does it hold that, since you are so notably irreligious, that your opinion on matters of religion is to be likewise downplayed, discarded, ignored?
Sauron
First, I don't considered plagiarism a conservative virtue, nor is the failure to admit mistakes.
Second, you cite Dembski as an authority. He is a mathematician, and yet he made a completely boneheaded mathematical mistake in his Google research. p>Finally, putting these together, both you and Dembski have made painfully elementary mistakes and have refused to acknowledge them. This speaks poorly for your commitment to basic personal honesty, and it speaks poorly for your basic competence in using math to analyze phenomena.
"Either things gradually morphed (or "evolved") into more complex things, or someone designed them."
Trouble is that you have the Theory of Evolution wrong. Nothing in that theory requires increased complexity, just change. For example, every mammal is essentially at the same level of complexity, yet all evolved from the earliest proto-mammal. You are not really any more complex than a mouse. Your morphology is different. Your brain is of larger size, but constructed in exactly the same way.
You reproduce in the same way as the mouse. Your young feeds on milk produced by mammary glands.
Sometimes, complexity increases, but that is hardly a requirement of the Theory of Evolution. Change is what the TOE is about.
So, you see, you get a basic fact wrong and that affects your argument in a negative way.
I recommend that you go to your local public library and ask for an introductory book on Evolutionary Theory. That way, you can learn something about it.
"The problem is that there are only two possible competing theories."
Only two that you can think of. To close the door on there being a third is unscientific, even if nobody can think of another at the moment. At one time, people only saw one possible theory: that some supernatural force created life.
" You know that tail bone between your butt cheeks?? Why would God place that bone there?"
Oh, I know. I know! (holding hand high in air)
God put the coccyx in man to help him learn a lesson. You see, God knew that man would eventually learn to roller skate. Thus, God knew that man would fall upon his arse and fracture that series of fuzed vertebrae.
God knew that upon suffering that fracture, man would shout "Jesus Christ!" thereby affirming his religion.
And that is the story of how Man got his coccyx.
I have other such stories, and will tell them when appropriate.
This is clearly a survival characteristic since it has survived and the only characteristics that survive are survival characteristics.
Back when pre-human beings were separating from pre-chimp beings the intelligent females of this species looked at the ones who spent their time wisely looking for bugs in the shade of the trees instead of the jerks who were trying to figure out how to balance on their hind legs in the heat of the savannah. The latter decided they had to do something to attract chicks so they acted all puffed up with NOLLIJ. This NOLLIJ actually attracted some of the chicks out of the shade of the trees and onto the savannah so these pre-humans kept it up.
Human males have been bloviating ever since. The best of them become lawyers and politicians. The less accomplished become scientists or clerics.
Shalom.
Except when it is in favor of evolution.
You are too funny mineral man!
Thanks!
Excellent!!
Wow! This is something I had not heard before.
What are some of the things that used to be viruses?
Shalom.
"So, does it hold that, since you are so notably irreligious, that your opinion on matters of religion is to be likewise downplayed, discarded, ignored?
"
You're welcome to discard anything I say about religion. Religion is not science, nor is it based on factual information that can be tested.
I rarely say anything negative about religion. I believe that each person comes to whatever religious faith they can accept...hence the many religions and sects of religions on this planet. I never say, for example, that a religion is false. I will say that I do not believe in any religion, which is not the same thing at all.
I don't really care what religion anyone follows. I do enjoy discussing the niceties of doctrinal issues from time to time, and do so from the point of view of someone who has studied many of them.
Being without a religion myself does not disqualify me from studying the beliefs of various religions.
You can keep it.
It is untestable.
It is unprovable. Only a very small minority of those in the scientific community even subscribe to it.
So far, there is not even any evidence for it. Mere vacuous wisp of an ethereal theory, my friend. Nothing more.
Ruminations on a chalkboard.
A vague attempt to stave off the inevitable conclusion that something created this universe...and it wasn't another universe did the creatin'.
Bye-bye, String Theory. Bye-bye, Brane Theory.
Consign them both the the Dustbin of Theories.
Wonder why (some) scientists feel compelled to grope for explanations that might counter the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God?
...because they don't wanna believe in a god. Any god. It scares them, personally, because they are arrogant, and don't want to be accountable for their actions.
Read the Old Testament (at a minimum). Move from your atheism to deism (at a miniumum).
Unlike YOU, I don't have enough FAITH to be an ATHEIST!
Sauron (Despite what I've said, supra, I have always greatly enjoyed your posts, MineralMan. You just happen to be wrong on this particular issue.)
If I read this correctly, the TOE is, basically:
Things change - get used to it.
Wow! And I thought it was science.
Shalom.
"Except when it is in favor of evolution."
No. Not then either. A poll of people not involved in the sciences has no relevance to science. Period. It doesn't matter how the poll turns out. Science does not use polls to determine facts.
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.