Posted on 08/16/2004 9:40:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You'll forgive me if I say that smacks of avoiding the question. Certainly biologists deal with it every day. Certainly astronomers deal with it every day. Botanists, geologists, biochemists all work in fields where evolution and evolutionary processes play a significant role.
Certainly many scientists deal with evolutionary procedures as an integral part of their work. These are not dumb people, these are not sheep. And overwhelmingly, they accept evolution.
I'll ask again. Why do you think the scientific community has overwhelmingly accepted evolution?
What issue?
Thanks for your input! Its very helpful.
Nice try, newbie.
But I'm a well-established long-time FReeper who has been here 5½ years longer than you. I've posted a total of 6,532 threads and 28,332 replies (not counting the ones in the OLD database where JohnRob can't generate the stats.)
You're not gonna get very far trying to stick an ACLU label on my calloused Buchananite hide.
As I stated before, I simply believe that religious activities are best practiced in church or private schools. If you want to pursue religious beliefs in public schools, you're simply opening the door to allow gov't bureaucrats to dictate what you can teach. IMHO, you're infinitely much, much better off cutting the puppet strings rather than trying to fight them.
Anyone with integrity would have accepted the correction by now and moved on. After watching him for a couple of years, I can tell you it ain't gonna happen with tallhappy.
Three card monty sharks have nothing on these guys.
May you both never forget:
"Ok, so you proved it in a lab. Using what? An experiment? And who DESIGNED the experiment? A Designer!"
Seriously, of course, you have no response because you are talking to yourself. Why would you say "retroviral sequences" by which I doubt you understand what you even mean, are useless.
Are you interested in biology or in belittling those who do not share you religious beliefs?
What's more important to you.
As an unsolicited contribution was it peer reviewed?
Methinks you are unfamiliar with the actual theory of evolution. Among the practical applications have been the studies of diseases and how best to combat them. As for testing the elements of evolution, every time a genome is mapped, it reinforces the phylogenetic trees built by biologists and paleontologists over the past century and a half -- that's quite a test, if you ask me.
You know, if you read a few of the layman's-level science magazines on the market, you'd get a lot better founding in actual work in the field than you apparently possess. I wouldn't recommend the more technical and peer-reviewed journals, as they can be real snoozers if you're not passionate about the subjects covered.
Where exactly did I say "they are useless"?
And, if there is such a thing as pigs with wings,...
You then explained thusly: This deisgner seems to have an inordinate fondness for retroviral DNA and broken genes.
OK, you didn't use the phrase "useless".
Why is it "incompetent" to include "retroviral DNA".
A variation on: "You did it in a lab? Proves nothing about what happens in the wild. You found it in the wild? Proves nothing unless you can reproduce it in the lab."
Always remember: Nothing is evidence of evolution; and everything is evidence of creationism.
Maybe Mr. Grumpy missed his naptime.
You take the term peer reviewed and harp on it as if it is the issue. I didn't argue and accepted your technical semantic correction. I said fair enough.
The issue is broader. What is the broader issue?
This started from the comments about Behe as a scientist. He has credibility in the field.
I'm not particularly interested in intelligent design as you are, but as far as I know the argument between the religious evolutionists, such as yourself, and IDers such as Behe has to do with flaws or weaknesses in various subsets of evolutionary theory -- the accuracy of molecular clocks for example.
IDers seem to use sequence data that doesn't fit with what would be predicted based upon specific theories as their best arguments for ID.
He published that sort of article in TIBS. Of course I'm sure it didn't say anything about ID in that review.
The oddest thing of all is that creationists are never wrong about anything above the typographical error/spelling level in discussion with the heathen evo. Even when they would seem to be obviously wrong, they aren't. Kinda spooky, that one.
Per the article you posted, we're talking about Intelligent Design and Evolution here, not Creationism and Evolution. Your Red Herring is starting to smell.
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.