Just picked this up, looking forward to reading it after hearing Mr. Barr on Dennis Pragers show last month.
Posted on 12/19/2003 7:47:15 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Barr is definitely onto something. How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion? Yet those who hold to that are basically saying that if you find empirical evidence that leads to a conclusion, your research and thinking is only valid if the conclusion supports the (also religious) conclusion that there is no Creator. In other words, you aren't allowed to search for truth, only certain kinds of truth.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Just picked this up, looking forward to reading it after hearing Mr. Barr on Dennis Pragers show last month.
Ivory bird displays ancient skill
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff
A sculpted piece of mammoth ivory may be the earliest representation of a bird in the archaeological record. The 30,000-year-old figurine, found at Hohle Fels Cave in Germany's Ach Valley, depicts what looks to be a diving cormorant with swept-back wings.
It was found with carvings of a similar style - one shaped like a horse's head; the other is half-animal, half-human.
Experts have told the journal Nature that the figurines are among the most exquisite examples of early human art.
I've never heard that. I have heard it said that Intelligent Design really has no scientific or mathematical substance to it, and is just a Trojan Horse for creationism.
Admittedly, I was mostly referring to FR when I said that; I have seen evolutionists tell me and others many times on this forum that Intelligent Design is simply not science, period. Still, it seems to me that the statements I referenced are six of one and the ones you reference are a half dozen of the other; both allege that Intelligent Design has no scientific substance and is meant to promote religion.
I've never heard that.
I guess you don't read the crevo threads too carefully.
Not just 'us' but matter in any form. Apparently, according to GUTH, there could be an infinite number of universes with absolutely no connection or possibility of communication between any of them, and--this is the point--most of them would be totally empty. We would, of course, not exist in a totally empty universe, that is, in most universes. Special? No, there is no communication, so there is no relation.
Intelligent Design isn't science because it proposes no testable hypotheses, has no research agends, and has no predictions that could, even in principal, be falsified by evidence.
It is as if police, coming upon a case they can't solve with current procedures, declare that aliens did it.
Nice read. Could you ping me for more of the article?
I read of Stephen Hawking's being reluctant to take his theory of the beginning of time to its logical conclusion of God's input because he feared being discredited by his peers. The book was "God, Time, and Stephen Hawking" by David Wilkinson.
Nor do you. RWP is the crevo threads. And you are not.
I suggest you find a link to support your statement.
I hope you're missing a word there. Otherwise, it's an honor I don't want. :-)
OK, you are just a major contributer.
But the ignorant statement that triggered my post needs to be crushed. The troll who posted it will not find any creationist poster who has argued against ID on either religious or anti-religious grounds.
What he will find, if he has the courage to look, is that ID supporters loudly proclaim that ID has no religious implications at all.
Missed that. Isn't that the point, that the Designer is required?
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.