Skip to comments.
Bush supports 'intelligent design'
MyrtleBeach Online ^
| 02 August 2005
| Ron Hutcheson
Posted on 08/02/2005 4:16:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700, 701-720, 721-740 ... 1,621-1,623 next last
To: Ichneumon
I read the whole thing, except the links, and I dont see any observed macroevolution being discussed in that post (if it is discussed in the links, could you point me to it). It is all implied from the fossil record. I cant refute your retro-virus statements and I think science has given a nice explanation of how a retro-virus can be passed from generation to generation.
At the end of the day it comes down to observation and repeatability, cornerstones of science. Macro-evolution is assumed from the fossil record and from various phenomena, such as your retro-virus example, but it has not been observed. That is the hurdle that must be jumped.
JM
701
posted on
08/02/2005 1:28:59 PM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: Ichneumon; Southack
Wrong. You have a false dichtomy there. The "very first life form" arose from *animate* matter (i.e. autocatalytic reactions which lacked some of the properties which need to be present before most people would consider something to be "a life form"). There's a large range of properties between "inanimate matter" and "life". It's a continuum, not a sharp black-and-white line. Please learn some biology before you attempt to lecture upon it again.While I agree that life is a continuum, in defense of Southack, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that life originated from autocatalytic reactions. That's a possibility, yes, and a reasonable one a that, but not one supported by any actual evidence. There is no evidence one way or the other, only hypotheses at this point.
702
posted on
08/02/2005 1:29:03 PM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
(Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
To: WVNan; bobhoskins
Perhaps a better word would be "reason". Humans can reason, deduct, induct, and have emotion. So can most animals. Or least the mammals and birds, anyway. Insects most likely operate in a manner best described as "mechanical". The fact that they can't do so as well as us is beside the point. It's a matter of degree, not "can / can't".
If it comes from a brain alone, then all brains should be able to do all those things.
Most can -- or at least those neural systems which are complex enough to accurately be described as "brains", as opposed to ganglia, etc.
To: My2Cents
Prove evolution in the lab.
Nothing in science is ever proven.
704
posted on
08/02/2005 1:31:41 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: TonyRo76
« avalanche of nonsense » LOL! Good description.
Everything looks like nonsense to the person who fails to understand it.
Standard fare from Evo's since 1859.
Evo's have been producing volumes of DNA evidence since 1859?
Are you really *that* ignorant?
Well, even before that actually... :-Þ
Okay, I guess you are.
What I don't understand is why you're so proud and belligerent about it.
To: Junior
Actually, you'll note something fascinating about the Greeks...
They aren't the central culture anymore. Haven't been for well over 2000 years.
And amazingly, when they were, they were producing Socrates, a philosopher and THEOLOGEN.
The only difference is that he gave up the "many gods" bit for speaking of "the Truth"
Perfection was "God" to him.
706
posted on
08/02/2005 1:32:16 PM PDT
by
MacDorcha
(In Theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.)
To: mlc9852
Nonsense repeated over and over is still nonsense, no matter who is repeating it.You got that right. That's why it's vexing to us scientists to have to explain the same thing time and time again to the same individuals who blindly would replace science with faith in the unknowable.
707
posted on
08/02/2005 1:32:23 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: Ichneumon
All organisms (including people) are stimulus-response machines. The more complex the neural net, however, the more varied the responses to any particular stimulus and the greater the ability to handle and integrate multiple stimuli into the possible response(s).
708
posted on
08/02/2005 1:33:42 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: Southack
Now, I've delivered what you've asked, so it's only fair that in your next post to me, that you reciprocate with your falsification for Evolution. Name at least two acceptable methods as I've done above for ID, and name at least one credible scientific lab experiment currently under way to falsify evolution, There are dozens in the links of my recent large post. Try reading them.
To: JeffAtlanta
Thanks for the other link, and for being reasonable. I truly believe that we all argue from our own premises and therefore we always argue in a circle. God tells Moses: "I Am". I am what I am. What we think is what we become. I came full circle from being "damaged" by a fundamental church (the process), back to a knowledge of God that is not found in anyone's "religion". It is by revelation to those who ask.
710
posted on
08/02/2005 1:34:34 PM PDT
by
WVNan
To: Southack
A more reliable refutation of ID would be a successful lab experiment in which long strands of meaningful DNA programming code were self-organized (without external aid) into usable genes. Already done, although you're wrong about that being a falsification of ID.
Mathematical probability, however, points to the latter option as being unlikely.
ROFL! Okay, this should be amusing: Show us your math. Make sure that your mathematical analysis actual correctly models organic chemistry *and* evolutionary processes, or else your answer will be GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Go for it.
To: malakhi
"If God is both creator of the world and the author of scripture, then the two cannot contradict."
parting the Red Sea contradicts nature.
reversing the rotation of the earth contradicts nature.
Manna from heaven contradicts nature.
turning sea to blood contradicts nature.
bringing water from a rock contradicts nature.
a pillar of fire that is not quenched contradicts nature.
turning a woman to salt contradicts nature.
These are but the tip of the iceberg of the things in the Bible that contradict nature. Did these events not happen?
JM
712
posted on
08/02/2005 1:36:26 PM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: Rudder
Yeah, faith is so overrated, isn't it?
713
posted on
08/02/2005 1:36:40 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: PatrickHenry
Prez Bush, you've trivialized the conservative movement by this shocking endorsement.. Its unbecoming of you to chose this dumb televangelist crapola over the integrity of the entire scientific establishment.
714
posted on
08/02/2005 1:37:19 PM PDT
by
Analog Artist
(My thoughts are like silvery liquid metal floating through infinite white space in zero gravity..)
To: Ichneumon; WVNan; bobhoskins
Animals can reason. Chimps and bonobos, for example, understand what they look like, and can see themselves in a mirror, something no other animals can do. Moreover, apes are flexible thinkers and flexibility is the key to reason. If one approach to solving a problem doesn't work, they will try others, as humans do. A squirrel will continuously bury and dig up nuts, even in a tropical climate where the food source is unending -- it will not react to changing circumstances by thinking flexibly and changing its ways. Apes and humans do.
715
posted on
08/02/2005 1:40:00 PM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
(Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
To: JeffAtlanta
716
posted on
08/02/2005 1:41:16 PM PDT
by
ohioWfan
(If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
To: MacDorcha
It doesn't matter that they no longer exist (we won't exist centuries from now). What matters is that those idolators were able to create the first free society in the West.
BTW, what is a THEOLOGEN?
717
posted on
08/02/2005 1:42:24 PM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: JeffAtlanta
Eventually the designer will have to be supernatural.That is a position you are free to take, but ID does not address that issue.
By the way, evolution does not deal with the beginning of life so the argument against "random chance" is misplaced.
Evolution still makes the claim that all life evolved from the simplest single celled lifeform by random mutation. ID simply says that is not possible, and shows why.
718
posted on
08/02/2005 1:42:52 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Junior
I doubt that seriously, based upon the comments of the anti-Es in regards to their knowledge of evolution.Of course you doubt that, because you want to. It suits your agenda.
719
posted on
08/02/2005 1:43:36 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Alter Kaker
Do animals know "good" and "evil"? Moral reasoning is strictly a human function.
720
posted on
08/02/2005 1:44:02 PM PDT
by
WVNan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700, 701-720, 721-740 ... 1,621-1,623 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson