Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Sun]

"Not in science."

So scientists have their own dictionary?? How convenient.

Evo scientists are trying to destroy science, as they are stuck in the past.

Science is always learning, and all scientists should be curious - even the evo scientists.

[Sun]

I never said evo scientists were evil.

[Sun]

Darn!!

I wanted to be 1,000. You cheated. :)

[Dimensio]

Only laymen and creationists make such a mistake.

Sun has passed the point of making a mistaken and is now simply lying.

[whispering out loud]

my explanation is there but maybe you're just too dense to understand it, l e t m e t y p e r e a l s l o w s o m a y b e y o u c a n g r a s p t h i s.

Following growth charts, which were by the way scientifically built, and following a time table for evo, made by your own theory. I have concluded that man hasn't in no form has existed for more than 17000 years, And according to your own "Darwinist theory" it would take much longer for ape to indeed "evolve" into man. As far as animal fossils found that don't exist today, .. reckon all the species that die out in society today, "our endangered species" will be called evolutionary "links" next?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yeah, yeah, all my links are distorting, but yours are not. (sarcasm) Same ole tune."

Sorry if the truth hurts.

The quote you have, was that supposed to be a *gotcha!*? It says that scientists considered introns vestigial. What is wrong with the interpretation that scientists had? They saw parts of the DNA that weren't coding for anything. They speculated that this DNA was not performing its original function. It would therefore be vestigial. Just because AIG thinks this is wrong or the writers there aren't smart enough to know what vestigial means doesn't concern me.


Since you have not read anything I posted to you, especially the link explaining what vestigial means,and you keep giving the same erroneous arguments, it is obvious you have no intention of having a debate but just want to keep regurgitating the same old crap. Unless this changes, this conversation is over.

[Stark_GOP]

"Does it bother you that you share the beliefs and approach to science embraced by the taliban?"
---
That's like saying Eisenhower and Hitler were politically alike because they both built a national highway system.

[Dimensio]

That's like saying Eisenhower and Hitler were politically alike because they both built a national highway system.

Did you read the post to which muir_redwoods was responding? The fact that the argument is invalid is the point and muir_redwoods was attempting to illustrate that through a counterexample to the original poster's illogical connection.

[Dimensio]

Following growth charts, which were by the way scientifically built, and following a time table for evo, made by your own theory. I have concluded that man hasn't in no form has existed for more than 17000 years, And according to your own "Darwinist theory" it would take much longer for ape to indeed "evolve" into man.

You said that you "kinda did the math", but you provided absolutely no references or numbers, you simply made an assertion and ran with it just like you are doing now.

[Dimensio]

I said that if you oppose ID because it cannot “be confirmed or contradicted by evidence,” then you must oppose the theory of evolution, which to date cannot be confirmed or contradicted by evidence.

The fossil record and cross-species DNA support evolution (though they do not prove evolution, as nothing in science is ever "proven"). Contradictory fossil finds, such as a Precambrian rabbit fossil, or contradictory DNA finds, such as a transposon found in whales and cows but not hippos, would falsify the theory of evolution.

[Stark_GOP]

"Did you read the post to which muir_redwoods was responding? The fact that the argument is invalid is the point and muir_redwoods was attempting to illustrate that through a counterexample to the original poster's illogical connection."
---
Silly me. I thought that I could do that too. lol

[muir_redwoods]

"That's like saying Eisenhower and Hitler were politically alike because they both built a national highway system."

The taliban believe in the literal scriptural story of creation and getting all of the truth that matters to them from scripture. They believe that in any conflict between scripture and any other source, scripture must be right. They believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be an atheist. I think that describes a stronger similarity with ID proponents than one could draw between Ike and Hitler. But then I'm a rational human being so maybe I have an advantage, BTW, Since you were the first to bring up a 3rd Reich or nazi comparison, I believe you have forfeited the argument.

[whispering out loud]

Now you're nitpicking When I said "kinda did the math" kinda was used as a figure of speech. I did the math and I assure you my math is more than adequate. As far as references, I have withheld nothing from you, population growth charts are readily available throughout the Internet. Do the math your self, don't take my word for it. The link I used was "Human Population Growth" in "Kimball's Biology Pages". Really though, this isn't about me not posting references, you have a fundamental problem with people disagreeing with you. I could care less if you believe Evo, but you seem angered that my family and I would rather trust in the Bible than accept a weakly supported theory. I have not asked for the schools to remove Darwin's theory, I have only said that I don't want it to be the only explanation presented at school to my children concerning the origin of human life. If you have a problem with that, then you are obviously afraid that someone might believe it over your weakly supported theory.

[Sun]

BREAKING NEWS


Kansas Professor Attacked By Intelligent Design Supporters?
by Mike Baron
Dec 8, 2005



Professor Paul Mirecki, the chairman of the Religious Studies Department at the University of Kansas, was reportedly hospitalized after being attacked by two unidentified men.
The assailants apparently made references to the class he is planning to teach in the spring. The course, entitled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" was intended to support evolution, and explore creationism as a mythology.
Professor Mirecki had left his home and was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.
Mirecki said, "I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind." "They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out."
"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."



He said the men beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and quite probably a metal object. Mirecki reportedly drove himself to the hospital after the attack.
John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, had previously objected to Professor Mirecki's focus on creationism as mythology, and claimed that the religious studies professor was "labeling anybody who proposes [intelligent design] to be simply a religious nut".
Mirecki has reportedly decided to cancel the course after he allegedly caused controversy by using the slang term "fundies" to refer to Christian Fundamentalists in an email to a student organization, the Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics.
Professor Mirecki has since apologized for using the term, which is viewed as a slur by many conservatives.
State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said there is no excuse for someone physically assaulting the professor -- regardless of their politics.
"I have zero tolerance for thugs," she said, according to the Wichita Eagle. "There is never an excuse to behave in such a manner. This was just thugs. They used a flimsy excuse, if they had one, to behave as thugs. They can talk about the ID (intelligent design) course if they want to, but that's not an excuse."
-- Compiled from wire reports
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2121738.shtml

[Sun]

Salthe does not appear to be a conventional conservative thinker. He states: “My opposition to [Darwinian evolutionary theory] is fundamentally to its sole reliance on competition as an explanatory principle (in a background of chance). Aside from being a bit thin in the face of complex systems, it has the disadvantage, in the mythological context of explaining where we come from, of reducing all evolution to the effects of competition.” Salthe considers this to be a “myth” that is morally destructive but “congenial to capitalism.”

Salthe is not the only scientist who takes exception to the no-questions-asked treatment of Darwinism. So does quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, a Nobel Prize nominee and recipient of prestigious scientific awards. Dr. Schaefer is a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and mathematician William Dembski of Baylor University are other prominent supporters of Intelligent Design theory.

excerpt

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3076&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

[RunningWolf]

No names mentioned but easily figured out

RE: Your unsolicited unwelcome festering 'ping' to whispering out loud

I know this will be difficult.., and perhaps impossible for you.. but will go very slow for you.

YOU NEED TO PULL HEAD OUT OF OWN PUSTERING ASS.., and refrain from pinging anyone till you can bring either science, dialog, honesty and integrity to the table.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

I apologize for bringing you into that whispering out loud.

It was about #955 to you.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

You don't get it, demented and the rest will never do the math or accept anything else you bring to them for their peoples tribunals.

If you listen to their words and ignore everything else about them, Evo theory does not address such concepts as cowardliness, honesty, etc. And by the behavior of a few ( specifically one at this instance), we see that they cannot honestly claim these concepts as part of their own moral code either.

Wolf

[whispering out loud]

no apologies necessary

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I said go pee in a bush and finally do something useful on these threads Rabid Wolfie. Away!