Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
That is NOT the theory of evolution! Even this pro-ID site blows your fallacious statement:
Evolution concerns itself with how life diversified, not now it came about. This is the biggest strawman put up by most ID supporters, and is why most ID supporters are treated with disdain by evolution theory supporters. It's an inane strawman in that it does not even ADDRESS the theory of evolution!
ID concerns itself with the origin of life; evolution concerns itself with how life diversified after it started. COMPLETELY different questions, and thus there should be NO concern or surprise when evolutionary theory supporters completely dismiss ID proponents - you're not even talking the same problem!
The problem is that the chief proponent of atheism richard dawkins doesn’t discount intelligent design. He merely assigns it to space aliens. Likely he got that idea from one of the discoverers of the double helix back in the 50’s.
The next time it is daylight in your time zone and the weather is mostly clear please do the following.
Go outside to a location from which you can see the majority of the sky. Then locate the large object in the sky that is yellowish in color and is giving of large amounts of energy in the IR/Visible/UV range. This object, located 93,000,000 miles away is our external energy source.
That energy source, Sol, is the reason why the 2nd doesn’t apply.
“Evolution concerns itself with how life diversified, not now it came about.” Why is that such a difficult notion for some to grasp? ... And Ben is gonna make a lot of money selling a movie which promotes the same disconnect!
I wish somebody WOULD speak of Intelligent Design, because I don’t think any of you really have anything tangible in mind when you say the words. What is your concept of the process of Intelligent Design? Over what span of time did it occur? Did it involve the manipulation of matter in some way?
But as I said, I don’t expect any sort of answer to these questions, because it is in fact nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.
"What laws of physics does evolution violate?"
all of them, with citations
Scientists have been wrong about lots of stuff. Don't confuse good science with scientists. There are a lot of bad scientists.
Do you believe that global warming, if it exists, is caused by man? Those claims have no real factual basis.
Scientists have personal biases. Do you pretend they don't?
Belief in evolution requires a great deal of faith. The faith of evolutionists was once placed, in part, in the whole primordial soup thing until not even evolutionist could maintain that fraud. The changes in the evolutionary faith would even embarass most Mormons.
It is not logical to claim that people of faith cannot also be extraordinary scientists.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not apply. It states:
The earth is not an isolated system with a defined amount of energy; it is receiving constant electromagnetic energy input from the Sun (approximately 43 MJ on every square meter of the earth per day). And energy from cosmic rays. And matter and energy from collisions with meteors, asteroids. And the 40 tons of matter added to earth each day.
We're far from fitting the criteria of an isolated system that is required for application of that law of thermodynamics.
And further, he said that no one did. Are you going to say that ID provides the answer just by saying the words, "Intelligent Design" ?
I would be against any effort to remove anyone simply because they reject ID. I think that honest debate is a very good thing. I just hope you will refrain from attacking ID’ers and Creationists as stupid or liers like so many athiests are very quick to do - that I will admit can get old fast.
Well, tell us how evolution progressed and point to a few "transitional species". Point out any positive mutations where the mutant survive. Explain the odds of both male and female mutants of the same species came to exist in the same general location, survive birth, survive to adulthood, in the same time period,and were able to find one another and mate successfully.
The odds of all that happening are so extraordinary that a reasonable person would have to conclude that it is statistically impossible. that is on top of the statistical impossibility that a new species with a differing number of chromosomes could arise that wasn't so deformed and disabled that it could possibly survive for more than a very short period of time.
Science always, inevitably self-corrects. It may take a year or a hundred, but it WILL correct because ultimately science is about making absolute statements that are testable and provable as true or false.
The AGW hoax is already starting to see corrections arise, and ultimately will be debunked. More and more science is breaking it down, proving it wrong. Likewise with the "earth-centered" solar system, the concept of "aether", the "flat earth", and the concept of only 4 elements (fire, water, earth, air).
Faith, on the other hand, rarely self-corrects; witness Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism. Christianity is one of the few that has self-corrected when the religious structures went sideways (like the selling of indulgences, or the tolerance of slavery). But generally faiths tend to self-correct a LOT less than science.
That is actually not true. Ben Stein makes it very clear in the movie that he does not believe that todays evolutionists are NAZI’s. In fact, he clarifies that Darwinism was not the only influence on Hitler. The ultimate statement that the movie makes was that Darwinism was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the rise of Hitler. Since Ben Stein was very carefull in the movie to clarify that he was saying what you just accused him of saying, I have to wonder if you even saw the movie. Did you watch the movie or are you basing your statements off second hand information?
I can understand why evolutionary theory supporters get so frustrated with ID supporters, and just dismiss them out-of-hand...
While I think you are a bit naive, why are you so confident that ID is not a better explanation for life than evolution? There certainly is no objective basis for the belief in macro-evolution, is there? You may BELIEVE it is true, but you have no real scientific evidence. At the very best, evolution is no more than a "scientific model". It doesn't come close to being a "scientific theory" because it cannot be tested and duplicated.
Question - since virtually everywhere on earth recieves energy from the Sun, wouldn’t your interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics render the law virtually never applicable? Because energy is always going to be coming in from the sun unless you are conducting a test in lab conditions where you can block out the suns energy. Doesn’t this interpretation then create a loophole that swallows the law almost entirely.
Yes, the earth is a “system driven far from equilibrium”, as witness the many forms of weather phenomena. The complex processes of thunderstorms, for example, are analogous ( ANALOGOUS, I say! ) to the complex chemistry that takes place in the oceans, and one must think along these lines for any theory of the origin of life. It’s very difficult, though. For example, in weather models, do they find that rain showers and thunderclaps spontaneously develop as the model unfolds? I don’t think so.
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.