Posted on 04/18/2008 4:04:57 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
No more than you can define science.
adios!
You just THINK you know what scientific evidence is let alone provided some definition that all can somehow agree with.
Your biases form your world view just like everyone else, and the point of the thread is a valid one.
That is cut and pasted from post 58. Emphasis added.
That is what you claimed was cut and pasted from me.
Ergo, I conclude that no profit is to be had in discussion with you. Especially when you add in gems of this sort:
Take a look at post 55 and then take your meds.
Argumentum ad hominem is often the sign of a weak case.
In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the school’s acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasn’t just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used “Creation”, while later versions substituted “Intelligent Design” in its place.
The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.
Knowing ID’ers are liars, lawbreakers, and hypocrites.
Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Liberals, while preaching tolerance to others, continually seek conformity as a way to control the masses.
Thanks for the report! Looking forward to seeing the movie tomorrow with a group. Hope many will take or go in groups!
Patently absurd!
The term 'Darwinism' was used "........in Darwin's day .........". On the same referenced page, Ernst Haekel (d 1919 and Alfred Russel Wallace (d 1913) used the term 'Darwinism'.
"Intelligent Design" originated in 1987 (around one hundred years later.
Pre-emtively, I am speculating whether you will dispute the referenced Wiki source, invent some more bombast, or perhaps simply tell me to 'shut up"?
Remember, there are lots of BS detectors on FR!
Moreover as I pointed out, Science is true even if the original discoverer decides he or she no longer finds the evidence convincing. Einstein could have shouted E=mc cubed all he wanted; it wouldn't have changed that it is E=mc squared.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
-About two-thirds of scientists believe in God
-38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. (for those of you in Rio Linda that means 62 percent do believe in God).
-surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
Many experiments have been done on the capacity of living systems to respond to selective pressure. Suppose I take a single bacteria, grow it up into a colony, then plate it on ten different plates that I will subject to ten different pressures (heat, cold, pressure, antibiotics, starvation, etc). Do you suppose that....
a) all bacteria will be the same but not grow as well because of the pressures.
b) all the bacteria will die
c) the heat treated bacteria will accumulate mutations that allow them to tolerate and grow faster at high temperature.
This type of experiment has been done many times. A recent experiment with heat resistant bacteria showed that a particular colony went through EVERY POSSIBLE single point change until the survivors were left with a version of the protein that allowed for high temperature survival.
If the big bugaboo that some believers have with Evolution is randomness, how is randomness a factor when every possible combination is attempted until only the most beneficial version is present in the population?
Sure doesn’t seem random to me. Or a system constantly in need of “Incompetent Design” tinkering.
I stand by my contention. Words ahave existed for millenia, but as they are used today, my statement stands.
“The phrase lay relatively dormant for nearly a century. “The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA,” recalls Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who was present at the phrase’s re-creation.”
Only ‘one in a million’ animals is ever fossilized and preserved. Only ‘one in a million’ animals are born with substantial morphological changes that would be obvious by looking at the preserved skeleton. So the fossil you are looking for is one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. And would you know it if you saw it?
According to some creationists every Neanderthal fossil was a diseased and deformed human.
It isn't Science that supposes that we will find a bunch of mutated monstrosities in the fossil record. We are lucky to find healthy intact specimens who fell down some crack or got buried in a landslide or fell in a peat bog or something; we have found a lot of good fossils, but a gazillion?
bad math alert. still only one in a million. but most major mutations would never live long enough to die in a way that they would be fossilized. Evolution doesn’t take place by ‘hopeful monsters’ anyway, the link in a chain of being would be only slightly smaller, slightly more streamlined, a specialized tooth slightly smaller and more general use, etc, etc. As such it would be hard to recognize an outlier as not being indicative of an entire species. Time for rest.
“Darwinists do not exist”?? Come on. That’s really grasping at straws.(or parsing words, anyway)
Personally, I believe in evolution, or natural selection, or whatever you want to call it, but I don’t see why that precludes the existence of God.
It doesn't. But it does prevent creationism from being tought in school. That's why IDers invented ID. There are plenty of churches, but IDers want to teach Genesis in public schools. Hence the legalistic boondoggle
EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED.
Thanks for proving the point of Ben Stein's movie.
Could you please give me empirical evidence of ID. Why can’t any proponent of ID state the evidence for ID?
Who said I was a proponent of anything but the movie? You did. Show me your evidence that I am a “proponent of ID?”
Intelligence.
Again, the problem with the claims of evolutionists that single-cell organisms evolved into humans is that evolutionists have never satisfied the "show me" aspect such a claim by making a human starting with a single-cell organism.
Indeed, the claim that man can walk on the moon would still be regarded as science fiction if it weren't for the "show me" results of actually doing so. That is, successfully applying a process, sending a man to the moon, based on the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments dealing with gravity, rocket fuel, etc..
The bottom line is that, as opposed to ever having proved evolution to yourself by evolving a human from a single-cell organism in "Evolution 101" lab, you are ultimately accepting evolution by faith as much as Christians accept Bible realities by faith.
But all that is beside the point. Given that most people will never make a penny off of their understanding of creationism, evolution or ID, the ongoing creationism versus evolution feud is nothing more than the following. It is an example of secularists who have managed to lever a politically correct perversion of the 1st Amendment to keep overzealous Christians from pirating government power so that they can cram their religous beliefs down everybody's throats.
That's the way that secularists see the situation anyway, in my opinion.
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.