Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.
But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.
I never stated anything of the sort. Go back and read what I've actually posted. Your insistance on supposing some intelligence as guiding the universe but providing no evidence for it or test to determine whether it exists at all is what makes your position unscientific.
It is my love for intelligence and science that makes me want to strip evolutionism from the scientific mainstream.
Then why not propose an alternate theory that takes all the evidence into account? Scientific reputations are made by discrediting and overthrowing untenable theories. Go for it!
Then why not propose an alternate theory that takes all the evidence into account?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Intelligent design by an intelligent creator is an alternate theory that fills all of the gaps that evolutionism (the religion of evolution) will NEVER be able to fill.
Intelligent design answers the creation of the universe, not that it just "appeared" as something from nothing (an impossibility no matter how "cute" the Big Bang might sound). That life is ordered and designed answers the silly notion that evolutionists have that life spontaneously erupted from rocks, water and a few chemicals. Intelligent design answers the complexity of the DNA. Intelligent design answers the MYRIAD of species rather than one "super species" that natural selection SHOULD have turned everything into. Intelligent design answers the mathematical precision of the earth's orbit, and even the earth's moon size and orbit which creates ocean tides "cleansing" the ocean so it doesn't become a putrid, stale, stinking stagnant dead body of water. The input from intelligent design answers how we get order from disorder when the LAWS OF NATURE say the opposite. And on and on...
Seems to me the real issue here is that the blind religious fundamentalist evolutionists feel threatened by the TRUTH that evolution is a science FRAUD!
ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com
Although it does seem he's stopped invoking Popper.
Please tell me you're kidding!
G: More sloppy thinking.
F: Natural processes are by definition unintelligent.
You see, your vehement evolutionary militancy marches on: Because I believe in intellegence, I am somehow anti-scientific. Oh my!
G: No, it's because you assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable and think that can be part of science, that's why you're anti-scientific.
F:When it comes to evolutionism, I do not make assumptions. Your inability to quantify and recognize intelligence does not make me unscientific.
G: I never stated anything of the sort. Go back and read what I've actually posted. Your insistance on supposing some intelligence as guiding the universe but providing no evidence for it or test to determine whether it exists at all is what makes your position unscientific
Let's see you said that I "assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable," I said "I don't make assumptions."
You said I "assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable and think that can be part of science."
Let me say it this way. Dispite your protestations, I believe you have an IQ greater than 1. Now do you get it?
What are Darwinists Afraid Of?
Answer: God & all that goes with belief in Him. It means that science cannot control/understand everything in the universe & that ticks them off. They're arrogant buggers for the most part.
Darwinists are afraid of the truth. All philosophical systems built on lies avoid the truth like vampires do the light.
Now that I have all of the evolutionists attention with the caps and exclamation points ;-)
How about answering the issues? Oh, and before you denigrate Popper, his scientific method is acceptable in a court of law.
So then, if you can't answer those **major** holes in the **theory** of evolution, then it fails under the scientific test and is NOT science!
Are you up for the challenge?
Show me how evolution answers the origins of the universe (where the raw materials for the process originated from).
Show me how evolution answers the issue that "life" is able to spontaneously "erupt" from rocks, water, and a few base chemicals.
Show me how the basic laws of nature can be overridden by evolution so that "order" is **routinely** achieved, over billions of years of more and more "ordered" accidents to achieve the current state of life on the planet.
Show me how evolution answers the diversity of species RATHER than the cosolidation of the species.
Show me how evolution answers the complexity of DNA encoding so that there are **billions** of instructions contained within a single DNA strand.
This should be sufficient. If evolution is UNABLE to account for each of these items, it has been disproven and is a science FRAUD! (and yes, I am using the BiG LeTtErS now to get your attention)...
If evolution is unable to answer questions related to its basic inputs of having something come from absolutely nothing(the "big bang"), its basic process of how life "spontaneously erupted" (or maybe that was one of those gozillions of accidents), its continuing process of diverse flora, fauna, and various forms of life, rather than the dramatic conslidation of life into a single "super species," and how DNA has been encoded with the billions of instructions for various living organisms...
Then, DISPROVE intelligent design...
I have given specifics, if you can not answer these specifics with anything but the typical *secular fundamentalist dismissive non-responses that don't answer the questions then go find a different pulpit to preach in. Take your evolution sermons somewhere else.
Either answer the questions in relation to evolution or evolution is a science FRAUD!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Religious adherence to all things "worldly" in nature that exclude the possiblity of a God, Creator, or intelligent designer
Have you seen any Darwinist or evolutionist provide a single negative observation of the inference of "design" of the bacterial flagellum? Or how about the Cambrian Explosion? How about the "blood clotting cascade"?
Take a look at:
http://spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=8543
fOnT fAnTaSy PLACEmARkeR!!!!!
Quick examples; you have several things you want evolution to answer to (e.g., "Show me how evolution answers the issue that 'life' is able to spontaneously 'erupt' from rocks, water, and a few base chemicals"). I don't think evolution deals with most of those subjects to begin with.
You propose to set up a couple of questions evolution "can't" answer, and thereby prove it false. You really should stick to things the theory of evolution addresses next time, not what you want it to address.
By way of contrast you say, "Then, DISPROVE intelligent design..." There's nothing to disprove yet as there is no theory! Nothing has been established yet. There's no there there! You need to lay out the data, assumpations, hypotheses, and link everything together with a scientific theory that can be tested and falsified. Hasn't been done yet. You're more at the stage where the little voices in your head tell you something so you run shouting it from the steeples.
I'll try one more time to explain how science works, not that it will do any good.
Science starts with data, also called facts (they are simple things like this rock is x hardness on the Mohs scale; water boils at xx degrees at yy elevation, etc.). Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory. Theories organize data, so that science is facts and theories. Facts alone lack meaning; theories attempt to give them meaning. A powerful theory accounts for old facts and new and also allows predictions. These in turn are tested, and depending on the outcome provide feedback to the theory. Anyway, see a variety of places on the web which explain this in more detail.
I don't have the slightest hope that this will do any good as in order to support the conjecture of creationism its supporters are obfuscating the nature and methods of science, and in fact many of them are trying to destroy people's confidence in science, if not destroy science itself.
That's real smart; where will you turn when the barbarians are at the gates?
The problem is that "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. It explains everything and therefore nothing. Was there a dinosaur with characteristics a, b, and c? The intelligent designer did it. Did that dinosaur not exist? No problem, the intelligent designer didn't do it. Does my body have unintelligible compromises and incredibly bad design? The intelligent designer obviously knows more than I do, so who am I to question his work? Is there an invisible pink unicorn in my back yard? Sure! Why not? The intelligent designer put it there. And so on.
Most unimpressive.
Intelligent design answers the creation of the universe, not that it just "appeared" as something from nothing (an impossibility no matter how "cute" the Big Bang might sound).
What does "intelligent design" not explain?
That life is ordered and designed answers the silly notion that evolutionists have that life spontaneously erupted from rocks, water and a few chemicals.
Nice straw man. ID also better explains why asparagus tastes more like prunes when you stew it than turnips. I'm impressed.
Intelligent design answers the complexity of the DNA.
Intelligent design answers everything, no matter what!
Intelligent design answers the MYRIAD of species rather than one "super species" that natural selection SHOULD have turned everything into.,p> Ditto. (Not that natural selection predicts that. If you want to criticize a scientific theory, shouldn't you, um, try and find out just a little of what it actually proposes?)
Intelligent design answers the mathematical precision of the earth's orbit, and even the earth's moon size and orbit which creates ocean tides "cleansing" the ocean so it doesn't become a putrid, stale, stinking stagnant dead body of water.
ID's mathematics is based on the unknowable, extrapolated ad lib using an unknown number of unknown variables, and can give any results desired. I'll admit that's pretty convenient, but it's not science.
The input from intelligent design answers how we get order from disorder when the LAWS OF NATURE say the opposite.
Um, this isn't the "second law of thermodynamics" canard, is it?
And on and on...
And on, and on, world without end, amen.
Seems to me the real issue here is that the blind religious fundamentalist evolutionists feel threatened by the TRUTH that evolution is a science FRAUD!
I'm sure it does seem that way to you. You have demonstrated with remarkable precision your complete misunderstanding of the theory evolution, the nature of science, and how logic works.
But you're on a roll, so don't let that stop you.
Nothing has been established yet. There's no there there! You need to lay out the data, assumpations, hypotheses, and link everything together with a scientific theory that can be tested and falsified. Hasn't been done yet.
Maybe this is the final wave of religious fervor that will sweep us into the cold depths of TalibanUSA. Or maybe it's just a glimpse of the future FreeRepublic. Or ...
High taxes?
F: Natural processes are by definition unintelligent.
You see, your vehement evolutionary militancy marches on: Because I believe in intellegence, I am somehow anti-scientific. Oh my!
G: No, it's because you assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable and think that can be part of science, that's why you're anti-scientific.
F: When it comes to evolutionism, I do not make assumptions. Your inability to quantify and recognize intelligence does not make me unscientific.
G: I never stated anything of the sort. Go back and read what I've actually posted. Your insistence on supposing some intelligence as guiding the universe but providing no evidence for it or test to determine whether it exists at all is what makes your position unscientific.
F: Let's see you said that I "assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable," I said "I don't make assumptions."
Correct. You are assuming an (undemonstrated), intelligence behind natural processes.
You said I "assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable and think that can be part of science."
If you think ID is science, that's true.
Let me say it this way. Dispite your protestations, I believe you have an IQ greater than 1. Now do you get it?
My IQ is irrelevant, your cute formulation notwithstanding. What's your falsifiable theory for a designer?
The problem is that "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. It explains everything and therefore nothing.
So, reluctantly, I will add you to my fester list.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456767/posts?page=201#201 for an explanation of this list.
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.