Posted on 08/28/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by AZLiberty
...
Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Don't ever expect a creationist to apologize for such. Their entire premise is based upon fabrications and outright lies.
The rhetoric of Johnny Cochran was almost identical to that used by the creationists over the years. They like "eyewitness" or "authority" but not forensics.
How do you know it took that long? Were you there to see it happen? The source you quoted in the post I replied to said it could happen in 364,000 years. Did you get that off of one of your evolutionist websites?
If it took millions of years does that mean that an eagle's eyes are more evolved and that a bat's eyes are less evolved? Are the eyes of all species equally evolved?
If a person loses an eye why don't they grow a new one? Some lizzards can grow new tails so it would seem that the most evolved species should be able to grow new body parts if the need arises.
Why do people need glasses? Why hasn't TOE eliminated the need for glasses?
You paint with too broad a brush.
I have known many engineers that operate by saying "I know it is this way. I want it to be this way. And I will keep doing it until it is this way" - ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of the subject.
There are many in every field that think that way but to characterize engineers that way is not realistic.
I even know one who was convicted of fraud against Uncle Sam because of this attitude. He ruined the careers of himself and a number of tother engineers as well. And I don't think it was a coincidence that he was a Creationist.
ID says the Designer made eyes. According to ID, eyes are perfect.
Why are you questioning the perfection of the Designer?
ID'ers are like the poor folk who used to believe that the stars were pinholes in the night canopy....all because it was far too intricate for their little brains to comprehend at the time. Things change, people evolve....most of them, that is.
But that's the beauty of ID "theory" to ID proponents. It evolves and adapts. When a truly scientific explanation comes along ID just takes a step back and says..."Well, okay, but what made it that way? The Intelligent Designer, of course"./sarcasm
I'm sure that there's enough stubbornness on both sides of the issue to cover almost everyone.
And you misquoted it. The site said millions of years. It said that one person calculated (as a mathematical exercise) that it COULD be done in 364k years. NOWHERE did he say it was done in 364k years.
If it took millions of years does that mean that an eagle's eyes are more evolved and that a bat's eyes are less evolved? Are the eyes of all species equally evolved?
Again, you show that all you know about evolution comes off the creationists' websites, not from the study of evolution.
If a person loses an eye why don't they grow a new one? Some lizzards can grow new tails so it would seem that the most evolved species should be able to grow new body parts if the need arises. Why do people need glasses? Why hasn't TOE eliminated the need for glasses?
Why? Because God screwed up and gave us a botched eye design?
I hear they eat puppies and cause crops to fail as well. Good grief ...
I have done no such thing. In post 36 you quote a source which claimed that a camera-like eye could evolve in 364,000 years.
As far as engineers being creationists it makes perfect sense. Engineers build things based upon intelligent designs.
These were all Biological terms long before they became PC. Please don't deride things unless you understand them.
Question. Why do all the creos like to twist things around and post things that are not true?
I think what I've said is that at this point, it may be preferable to teach neither macro evolution nor ID in Biology textbooks.
First of all, there is only one TOE. Darwin did not theorize a macro and micro evolution, and IIRC, he outright said that if his theory did not explain the origin of species it falls apart. So any "micro" evolution "theory" would be an entirely new theory.
Second, "it may be preferable" is a very noncommittal equivocal statement that leads me to conclude you don't really have any conviction about what should or shouldn't be taught in biology classes.
No, textbooks have increasingly began using terms such as diversity and unity of life etc. It's the impact of our PC culture. Evolution fits right in.
Again you lie. Here is your post!
And you would have us believe that it is possible for "camera-like eye" to evolve in only 364,000 years.
I like most engineers and I think they are a very valuable commodity, but my experience shows that the "I want it that way" attitude is much more prevalent in them. I attribute it to their relative lack of training in theoretical aspects of Science and I guess "objectivity".
I certainly may be wrong. Maybe I've just met the wrong set of engineers from the wrong schools working at the wrong places (mostly US government labs).
Right. There is only one theory which is micro evolution. Its the only one with any science. Macro evolution is an extension of that and is at the center of the debate. Macro evolution concepts should be pulled from the textbooks.
In post 36 you wrote, "In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
I can find little truth in what you claim is fact. And you accuse me of twisting things around and of posting things that are not true?
Please provide the context. Just like a creo to extract and misrepresent ...
"The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
Most engineers are NOT creationists. Sorry.
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.