Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
The New York Times ^
| December 4, 2005
| LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
To: JudgemAll
Natural phenomenum which appear completely random have in fact definite patterns and can be described by differential equations. No. Were this true, neither your computer screen nor atomic bombs would work.
321
posted on
12/03/2005 9:46:20 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
LOL! How so, Dr Stochastic?
(I guess that would make sense to track individual genes. I like the trademark.)
322
posted on
12/03/2005 9:47:22 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: muir_redwoods
Is there a university in Afghanistan?
323
posted on
12/03/2005 9:47:36 PM PST
by
Liberty Wins
(Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
To: Liberty Wins
However, does it ever bother you that you're sharing a philosophical bed with the likes of ... and every other freako liberal in this country?Not nearly as much as being politically allied with people who are so scientifically ignorant as most of the anti-Es who post here. No, worse than ignorant, impervious to knowledge.
To: Doctor Stochastic
325
posted on
12/03/2005 9:49:07 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: RunningWolf
326
posted on
12/03/2005 9:50:01 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: Dimensio
Think of causal logic as a progressive, ordered path of ideas or concepts (because thats what it is.)
And by the way, do you really not understand the significance of atheism to this discussion? I might be willing to explain it to you, that is if you really need the explanation, but it will waste time and you will appear a little dumber than you had probably hoped.
327
posted on
12/03/2005 9:50:23 PM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
To: Liberty Wins
"Is there a university in Afghanistan?"I suppose there are but you could do your own research. There are also lots of madassas there where they teach that all wisdom comes from scripture and that anything that contradicts literal interpretation of that scripture is anathema.
328
posted on
12/03/2005 9:50:32 PM PST
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: edsheppa
I really have to apologize for using a liberal-leftist tactic. It's called "guilt by association."
Just because the liberals have used evolution in their war against Christianity doesn't mean you folks are involved in it, right?
329
posted on
12/03/2005 9:51:09 PM PST
by
Liberty Wins
(Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
To: phantomworker
Some genes are passed on, some are not. This gives a stochastic character to offspring compared to parents.
330
posted on
12/03/2005 9:56:45 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Liberty Wins
I would like to say something about the pro-evolution debaters on this thread.
[...]
I feel sorry for you. Not because your beliefs sometimes include non-belief in God or the Bible (that is your business, not mine).
Yet another lying creationist dishonestly asserting that all who accept evolution are atheists.
However, does it ever bother you that you're sharing a philosophical bed with the likes of Alfred Kinsey, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Ted Kennedy and every other freako liberal in this country?
Do you have a rational argument, or are you just going to dishonestly claim that all atheists are of the same philisophical mindset as Karl Marx? And when did Ted Kennedy claim to be an atheist? I nust have missed that memo.
331
posted on
12/03/2005 9:57:06 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Cicero
In terms of subjectivity vs. objectivity. Yes, we do start with what we see. But you need to quantify and organize information apart from what we see. There is no way to objectively measure design. How would we even begin to go about it? That's why ID cannot succeed as science.
332
posted on
12/03/2005 9:57:51 PM PST
by
ValenB4
("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
To: reasonisfaith
And by the way, do you really not understand the significance of atheism to this discussion?
Only in that a number of creationists wrongly assume that anyone who accepts the theory of evolution are atheists. Or rather, many creationists know better but lie about it because they don't have an honest argument for their position.
333
posted on
12/03/2005 9:58:16 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: muir_redwoods
"Well, Russ, I can handle much more that you've dealt. I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you."
Let me try one more time to help *you* understand.
Evolutionists regularly assert that ID does not even qualify as a scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."
That claim is baloney. To illustrate that fact, I postulated the following hypothetical scenario. We're walking along the beach and we see the message, "E = MC^2" in large letters in the sand.
Now, suppose I said, "I'm pretty sure that message was put there by an intelligent being. I don't think it was the result of random winds or waters."
As an evolutionist, if you are consistent with your claim that ID is "unscientific" because it is "unfalsifiable," you would reply that my "theory of intelligent writing" is "unfalsifiable" and therefore wrong.
You then replied that this scenario is contrived because we already know the writing wasn't a random result. But HOW did we know that? We didn't see anyone write the message. The answer is that we know because we have COMMOM FRIGGIN' SENSE!
Do you get it now? You have common sense about the writing on the beach, but you apparently have none with regard to the definition of "science."
What in the world does it take to get through to you guys?
334
posted on
12/03/2005 9:59:01 PM PST
by
RussP
To: Dimensio
"And when did Ted Kennedy claim to be an atheist?" He didn't, and I didn't say he did. However, he recently made a claim disavowing ID and reinforcing his belief in evolution.
Can I answer any other questions for you?
335
posted on
12/03/2005 10:01:33 PM PST
by
Liberty Wins
(Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
To: Amos the Prophet
Scientifically gathered data, such as fossils and DNA analysis, is objective in that it is tangible and real. Scientists may disagree as to what it means and how to interpret it, but it exists. ID has no means of gathering data that can be measured in the real world. Therefore, all claims of ID are subjective.
336
posted on
12/03/2005 10:02:21 PM PST
by
ValenB4
("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Would that include recessive genes as well?
What particular stochastic process is used to model it?
For example, Markovian would be memoryless.
337
posted on
12/03/2005 10:02:42 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: Dimensio
I dont assume that, and you cant assume I do.
338
posted on
12/03/2005 10:03:22 PM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
To: Right Wing Professor
It's good to see that no serious Christian college has bought into this nonsense.
I'm annoyed at the dig the author took at the Holy Father. His declaration that the universe is an "intelligent project" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the nonsense coming out of the discovery institute.
To: reasonisfaith
Then why bring up the totally unrelated topic of atheism in a discussion of evolution?
340
posted on
12/03/2005 10:04:59 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 1,041-1,060 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