Posted on 08/26/2004 7:41:29 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
Proceedings of the Bioligical Society of Washington August 25, 2004
Link to PDF only. No text.
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
If you're this grossly ignorant of science, is it too much to ask that you stop lying about it?
Your cartoon misrepresentation does nothing to "highlight the absurdity of the theory of abiogenesis", but does much to highlight your own foolishness and inability to understand or discuss the actual biology.
That won't help, unless Acrobat has a built-in OCR. The PDF is simply photographic images of the pages, not the actual text-and-formatting from which the pages were created.
Perhaps the author wasn't keen on being quoted...
Truer words have never been spoken. Home run.
Oh, please... You guys are just reinforcing each other's misconceived prejudices. Where do you pick up this nonsense? You've clearly never actually spent any significant time among scientists.
Hint: Most American scientists are Christians. Hint #2: This makes them highly unlikely to be engaged in your fantasy conspiracy of being "actively engaged in propping up the philosophy of non-theistic materialism".
Hint #3: The majority of Americans (scientists or not) who consider evolution to be true are Christians.
Please, acquire a clue before spouting off, and leave the half-baked conspiracy theories where they belong.
Junior, what about the present article? It's got "Intelligent Design" written all over it! The tip-offs are all references to purposeful functionality, and the information (his way of writing the word on p. 216) that makes this possible. "Form" since the classical Greeks has generally implied "design," as in Aristotle's formal cause (Laws II).
If science cannot test for it, it has to dismiss it. Otherwise, it ain't science.
It isn't ignorance; it is essential. Science always proposes naturalistic explanations. That is what science does. Then it tests the hypothesis. If the hypothesis fails, another naturalistic hypothesis will be proposed. That is what science does.
Sounds one sided, but what is the purpose of proposing explanations that can't be tested?
Be nice if the link worked. Hell, it would have been nice if the abstract could have been posted, rather than just the press release.
I was reading this earlier. Fun. Has his work been reviewed yet?
Ah yes, the old you can only argue the merits of abiogenesis on my terms, and can only question it using my rules and with my permission.
You *really* need to work on your reading comprehension, son. That bears no resemblance at all to what I said. Hallucinate much?
You have repeatedly grossly misrepresented the field you are attempting to dismiss. This shows that you are either knowingly dishonest, or ignorant of what you are attempting to refute, or both.
The fact that I think it is BS is not because I do not understand it, it is because I do.
Then perhaps you should behave like you do, and actually talk about it, instead of knocking down straw-man versions which you have purposely crafted to make as cartoonish as possible. In short, discuss like an adult, and not like a child.
I understand the scientific method, and abiogenesis theory is not science.
Because...?
It is speculation.
It is supported by the evidence. That makes it considerably more than "speculation".
Science will never be able to answer the question of how we got here.
"Never", eh? Feel free to prove this "speculation" of yours. This should be amusing.
And if you dust off the old creationist chestnut about "no one was there to see it", then you'll only prove for sure that you *really* don't understand the scientific method.
Find out how some are formulating a testable version of ID in "Origins" by biochemist Fuz Rana and astronomer Hugh Ross
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576833445/terraspacedock
This could be the "next big thing" in ID.
Find out how some are formulating a testable version of ID in "Origins" by biochemist Fuz Rana and astronomer Hugh Ross
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576833445/terraspacedock
This could be the "next big thing" in ID.
It also would have been nice if some support had been given for the assertion that the "Proceedings of the Bioligical [sic] Society of Washington" actually *was* a "peer-reviewed" journal, and whether the alleged peers actually had sufficient background to review such a paper. Most of the articles I turned up for the PotBSoW were simple species surveys, mostly on birds. I searched in vain for a website for the journal, another bad sign.
But I guess the Antiques Trade Gazette already had a backlog of submissions.
Actually, it's nothing more than the expression of a wretched tautology: "If X is the cause, then X is causally adequate." What peer endorsed that?
Next? I'm still waiting for the "first big thing" in ID to show up. I've been hearing promises for the past thirty years, but...
I'm waiting for a readable version, but the paper has been described as a review of the literature. That's pretty safe.
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.