Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Insane and Out of Control Troll Warning.
Yes, I thought it was quite interesting how he backed away from the ID folks in the Dover case. Now why would he do that? Note also that Taft saw more upside than downside in snubbing ID in science classes.
I also thought it was just as interesting that the pro-ID school board members were completely routed. And this school district was in a county which went almost 2 to 1 for Bush over Kerry.
Interesting placemarker.
Um, actually..
Noting the Evolutionist capacity for precision *****
It is, my fingers moving in point of fact, and they are doing enough damage to your side that your guys have tried desperately to drop the subject and pretend they were elsewhere, didn't happen, didn't hurt. You guys are so transparent it's pathetic. You're like a cat that misses the mark and falls off the back of the couch, get's up then looks around to be sure nobody saw.. the cat just can't talk to say "that didn't happen." *snickering*
Perhaps you should tell that to Dimensio et al. They thought of it as an example.
Is that your attempt at a cry for prozac to make you feel better, or will you explain to us now how corn turning into corn is speciation. Still waiting.
So?
Indeed. ID has been the entrenched paradigm for several thousand years, and despite the fact that it is still batting zero for successful predictions or suggested lines of enquiry I also expect its thrash to continue for a while yet.
Scientific theories are more than just an explanation of existing results. They are certainly much more than just a conjecture or hypothesis. They make predictions and there are observations that would falsify them. They imply research programs and observations. Thus far no such program has been proposed for ID by its proponents.
Anyhow we may not be arguing about much. Behe, Denton, Dembski, and Meyer are all on record as accepting the following:
Really the only point of dispute I have with those people is whether their investigations of a hypothesis that they call ID have matured to the point where they should be taught to High School children along with established and accepted (even by the ID scientists) sciences like evolution.
will you explain to us now how corn turning into corn is speciation. Still waiting.
You are a liar and you are insane. I never said or implied 'corn turning into corn is speciation'.
Now one more time....move along troll.
Physics changelings?
While research has indicated that the constants are constants, there are some recent suggestions otherwise cosmicly, and the fact that a even a physicist of the first rank such as Dirac could consider the possibility very seriously should indicate that idea should not so scornfully be dismissed, that such scorn better reflects upon the misfiring of neurons or such in the scorner rather than scornee.
So because Dirac speculatively threw out the idea G might change, we can propose any physical law might change any constant in a completely free, and like, uninhibited way.
And, of course, we're not doing this to understand the universe, as Dirac was, we're doing it to argue against all the evidence that a 4.7 billion year old earth is actually 6000 years old, to fit the cosmology of some 3000 year old near-eastern sheep-herders.
I hope you are in the mood for dealing with a truly dishonest, obnoxious, and insane troll.
Well, when you crawl under your bridge or into your stall with your marker and snicker so hard you've convinced the world is now safe from evolutionists because of your efforts, those who are not Creationists will be looking in their medical dictionaries for the appropriate syndrome name for your malady.
Shouldn't be too hard to find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1577107/posts?page=699#699
You're either lying or exhibiting gross reading comprehension in regard to his testimony. Which is it?
Behe's meaning is entirely clear, except to those who wish to dishonestly deny or rationalize away his admission about "ID".
Astrology is not now, and has never in the past been, a scientific theory. To qualify as a *theory*, far higher and specific standards have to be met, which astrology has never achieved, and which "ID" does not meet either. When Behe wants "ID" taught *as* a theory, he does so by *HIS* REdefinition of the word "theory", in a dishonest attempt at bait-and-switch -- teaching it "as a theory" in *his* meaning, in order to give it the kind of respect that *real* scientific theories (i.e., ones which have actually met the high *scientific* standard of "theory") have rightly earned which "ID" has not.
Behe's admission that by *his* standards, astrology also qualifies as a theory (or even "had" qualified as a theory, since Behe backpedaled after his initial admission and tried to squirm out by saying that, well, astrology had been a theory in the past, mumble mumble) reveals quite starkly that Behe's personal definition of theory (and that of the IDers in general) has been stretched out of all sensible meaning.
Now do you want to deal with the facts of what he said, or do you want to twist and spin some more?
But balance and perspective is sorely lacking in this debate, mostly on the evolution side.
Yeah. Uh huh. Sure.
This is not surprising; entrenched paradigms always thrash about when threatened.
This is why the creationists are in such a froth when they fear that science is contradicting their cherished beliefs, and possibly leading people away from fundamentalist creationism. Their fear and desperation is obvious on every one of these threads.
I expect much more to come in the future.
Yes, I expect the anti-evolution creationists to become even more hysterical than they have already, and they're already major whackjobs.
Beat you to it for once. :))
"Every cock must crow on his own dung heap" - Lord Peter Wimsey
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.