Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Science of Design
TheRealityCheck.Org ^ | 4/10/05 | Mark Hartwig

Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-375 next last
To: qam1
The truth always wins out in the end.

Might want to remember that in the future, as you bend a knee to the person who headed ID.

321 posted on 04/11/2005 8:57:19 PM PDT by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: qam1

I must point this out:

Does finding it on the web make it truth? Does not finding it on the web make it a lie? What is the name of the fifth child born in the Sudan? Find it on the web. Provide a link.

Oh, wait...

"The Military won't put Atheist on dogtags, They put down "No Preference" or if the troops want Atheist on their dogtags they have to go out and buy their own in which they would be listed as "unknown"."

I'm not sure if you have any military background, but my family does. My dad put "no preference" on his, and he's a Methodist. Just meant he didn't care if he got a preacher or a minister.

As for laughing at the assertion of Hindus stating "my God" you missed a VERY important term. "MY"

Hindus rever the god(s) of their customs or preferance. They see them all as simply an aspect (incarnation) of the supreme Shiva. For a Hindu to say "Oh my Karttikeya" in a battlefield is the same.


322 posted on 04/11/2005 9:01:58 PM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz

> How studiously post 32 has been ignored.

That's because the page it links to is scientifically poor. It proceeds from the wrong mathematical assumptions regarding the odds of amino acids forming the right enzymes. Their approach is a purely random one, like calculating the odds of getting a certain layout of cards through random shuffling. It doesn't work that way.

The page fraudulently states:
"To duplicate a bacterium, one would have to assemble 2,000 different functioning enzymes. The odds against this event would be 1 in 10 to the 20th power multiplied together 2,000 times, or 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power... "

The problem with this is, one *wouldn't* have to assemble 2,000 different functioning enzymes ALL AT ONCE. Start with a group of, say ten. Enough for replication. If another is added and that helps, great. You've grown by one. If one is added and it hurts, that organism dies. Which is no loss since there are innumerable copies of it already in the primordial ocean, since it's capable of replication and all.

Through this simple approach, attaining 2,000 different functioning enzymes is a matter of time, not a matter of cosmic unlikelihood.



And the authors know this.


323 posted on 04/11/2005 9:06:34 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for your post!

And of course YOU know, Physicist, that "order" and "organization" -- particularly self-organization -- are not the same things. "Order" pertains to non-living systems, where organization (self-organization) pertains to living systems. Or so I heard.

Indeed. There is considerable difference between structural ordering and functional complexity, much less self-organizing complexity.

324 posted on 04/11/2005 9:06:57 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

> If you're talking about the Biblical interp of Creationism I would disagree. If you're talking about "6 days and God said 'poof' and that was it" then yes, I would go with you.

The two are not distinct. When one says "Creationism," one is almost invariably referring to the obsolete notion that God said "poof." The other meaning you seem to attach to the word is not often called "Creationism," instead the idea is known as "theological evolutionism." I.E. God created the diversity of life on Earth via the physical process of evolution. Few evolutionists would take issue with this stance. Many Creationists would, however, and would gleefully declare anyone who held that view to be Biblically flawed.


325 posted on 04/11/2005 9:10:56 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I'll be sure to keep that in mind while running computer simulations of RSRM performance. They've always been within 0.5% of actual test data in the past... i guess that's a lie.


326 posted on 04/11/2005 9:13:31 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Theological Evolutionism, Intellegent Design, Creationism. Identical in my eyes and most of my friends who claim "creationist" standings. Evolution is admissable in all camps I'm aware of.


327 posted on 04/11/2005 9:36:32 PM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: qam1
You misunderstood. I was not referring to atheists.

I do not believe in atheists.

Calling one's self "Christian" does not make it so. The term "Christian" is only used three times in the Bible, always as a term used in ridicule.

Many people claim to be Christians who do not have a genuine faith in God. In fact, many false teachers and leaders have come in Jesus' name, just like He said they would.

The Bible uses the term "unbeliever". There are three kinds - (1) those who think they are believers but are not (this includes all practitioners of false religions), (2) those who recognize they are not (often agnostic, or claiming to be atheistic), and (3) those who hate God.

Of the three types of unbelievers, the second group is generally the most honest and honorable in their behavior They also have the most hope of finding salvation.

Those who trust in their own goodness, claiming to be Christians, while living a lie, are in great peril. They sometimes deceive those around them and sometimes even themselves, but God knows our secrets and our hearts. According to Christ's teaching, hypocrites will be cast into the outer darkness.

I can understand how you feel about "Christians". If I had been attacked by someone impersonating an officer, it would probably affect how I looked at real police officers. It would not be an accurate reflection of what they stand for, but it would be understandable if it affected my attitude. Just do not allow the false believers to stumble you.

Whether you believe in God or not, you might agree that it is not healthy to harbor bitterness and resentment. Even true believers fail to live up to the standards Christ taught. Perhaps one or more of us has deeply wounded you and offended you by rudeness, pride, selfishness, or some other similar unchristian behavior.

If that is the case, would you accept my apology on behalf of Christians?
328 posted on 04/11/2005 9:44:38 PM PDT by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Fiat volvntas tva

Strong's Ref. # 7451

Romanized ra`
Pronounced rah

from HSN7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):

KJV--adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.].


329 posted on 04/12/2005 5:23:02 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Fiat volvntas tva
Yep, as long as you can keep your "patients" sick and on the couch, then you have a guaranteed income for life. Freud and other psycho-lalagist found themselves a neat scam.

And, a replacement for SIN in your life!

Just WHO needs a Savior if you're just 'sick'?

330 posted on 04/12/2005 5:25:02 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: qam1
1) Atheist/Agnostic are ~15% of the population yet make up just 0.2% of the prison population

NO one's an Atheist in a foxhole!


We don't want 'good' people in our churches; but BAD ones!

Leave the ninety and nine behind to rescue the one.

The well have no need of a Physician.

331 posted on 04/12/2005 5:28:09 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Now if religion had anything to do with being moral, As the country turns more secular wouldn't the trends be going in the opposite direction.

You're right here!

It's not 'religion' that people need, but a Relationship with the Savior of the world.

332 posted on 04/12/2005 5:29:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

Yeah....

wait 'til the BULLETS start flying, NOT when yer butt is stateside at a desk!


333 posted on 04/12/2005 5:32:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Please provide a link that actually backs up your assertion.

So... all we need is a LINK and you'd believe it??

334 posted on 04/12/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Why would the Military write an article about there being more Atheist in the military if there are none???.

Why would Democrats write an article about there being more people going to vote for them in the military if there aren't???.

335 posted on 04/12/2005 5:35:19 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

You are correct. My bad.

A suggestion. A little less arrogance and condescension. Not all mistakes are malicious or deceptive.


336 posted on 04/12/2005 5:35:45 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
> Yet intelligent design has nothing to do with the six days of creation and everything to do with hard evidence and logic. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! Yeah, and I'm the Pope.

As if evolution has anything to do with hard science. All I see are weak inferences and huge leaps in logic. Shamanism at its worst.
337 posted on 04/12/2005 5:36:20 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Which it's not.

The counterproof in your link is not terribly convincing.

Secondly, the idea of irreducible complexity is physical and mathematical fact. There are many systems in physics, chemisty, mathematics, engineering, etc. that are irreducibly complex. To maintain that biological systems are the only systems where irreducible complexity doesn't exist is an unwarranted assumption.

338 posted on 04/12/2005 5:39:05 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Name one. The "Irreducibly complex" structures produced by the ID movement have all been shown to not be.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not correct. There have been some attempts to show that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex; they are not convincing arguments.

The arguments that irreducible complexity doesn't exist at all are even weaker. As I mentioned in another post, irreducible complexity is a physical reality in many mathematical, physical, chemical, engineering, etc. systems. To maintain that biological systems are the only systems where it doesn't exist is an unwarranted assumption.

339 posted on 04/12/2005 5:42:31 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

He is. It was my mistake.


340 posted on 04/12/2005 5:43:15 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-375 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson