Posted on 08/28/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by AZLiberty
I see you did not challenge any of my facts.
Macro evolution is an extension of micro evolution
I repeat, Darwin did not theorize micro evolution and a macro evolution. These are just shorthand classifications to distinguish between evolutionary changes that result in new species and those that don't.
Thanks for the ping!
Of course I don't. What is your point?
While you mull over your answer, let me state my position in the creationsism-vs.-evolution bickering that so often erupts here. I say, "a plague on both your houses."
On the one side are the proponents of young-earth "creationism." As I said before, creationism is both bad theology and bad science: bad theology because it insists on a dubious interpretation of scripture; and bad science because—well, I am not sure that creationists engage in science at all.
On the other side, there are plenty of self-styled scientists who like to wave a red flag in the face of religious believers. Some in this camp may be competent scientists in their own fields of specialization; however, they slip too easily into scientism when they venture outside their areas of expertise.
What bothers me about the latter group is that they do not police themselves. They circle the wagons against the "attacks on science" by the creationists, whom they rightly accuse of misusing science. But they do not criticize those within their own ranks who are equally guilty of misusing science. In particular, they will not tell the militant atheists to stop pretending that science supports their religious/philosophical position.
In this context, the arguments on this thread over the religious beliefs of Einstein are telling. One side wants to prove that one can be both a believer and a great scientist. The other side apparently wants to prove the opposite. Both sides seem to believe that the weight of Einstein's reputation will strengthen their argument. Both are wrong.
Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist, so his opinions on evolution is probably not well informed. Moreover, since science does not deal with religious questions, Einstein's opinions on God carry no more weight than anyone else's.
Let's start with just one. I'll give you one SETI experiment. You give me one ID experiment. Fair enough?
Here is my first (and not coincidentally the first SETI project) sample experiment. Project Ozam
Now, show me yours.
Standing by for wise ass response.
In Japan in the 50s scientists provided monkeys they were studying with food (sweet potatoes). As a lot of monkey behaviour is learned from the parents, the tribe intially had no idea how to best use the new food.
Then one young monkey found that by washing the potoatoes, it not only got rid of the dirt, but the salt water improved the taste. She showed her friends and soon all the cool kids were doing it, while the older generation sniffed.
In 57-58 the youmg monkeys reached adulthood, and they started to bring up their kids as potato-waahers.
The scientist noted there was now a change in the way social behaviour was being transmitted (actually the parent>child was really a return to the traditional)
But some ill-educated dioofus just read the "change in social behaviou" line and thus we got Lyall Warson, Ken Keyws, Suopernature, 100th Monkey, Morphic Resonance, New Age and all that nonsense.
Of course I don't. What is your point?
Let's put it in context and my point is very clear.
Do you seriously deny that evolution is often used (or I should say misused) to "prove" that God does not exist?
Do you seriously deny that guns are often used (or I should say misused) to kill the innocent?
I did put that phrase in quotes.
Allow me to amend that:
Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist, so his opinions on evolution—whatever they may have been—were probably not well informed. Moreover, since science does not deal with religious questions, Einstein's opinions on God carry no more weight than anyone else's.
I see you didn't apologize for bearing false witness on Dr. Wald nor did you out your source of your lie.
Well, the blue certainly looks nice on my screen.
Simple question: have you read any Dembski or Behe? The author is a professor of Philosophy - not science
There is lots of interesting data there.
I'll bet you think you really showed me with your tough words, eh.
You evolutionists are very predictable.
"We're citing the NY Times now as an authoritative source?"
Because it's in accord with the evolutionists' agenda?
Btw, the NYT is mostly a left leaning-newspaper intent on the dismantling and ultimate destruction of Christianity, which it is to say of Western society. Know thy enemy.
left leaning-newspaper = left-leaning newspaper
Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis.
Stop dodging.
Interestingly enough, his belief in spontaneous generation and that spontaneous generation was impossible wasn't fabricated, more like paraphrased with a conclusion drawn. He also stated that with enough time, the impossible could become virtually certain.
Having nothing to do with this specific discussion, I discovered that he thought war crimes was an invention of the U.S before the Nuremburg Trials and that having nuclear weapons as a deterrent was undesirable.
His rationale in more than one area is less than rational.
Here in Dennet's article is an excellent example of bad science. I have no objection to his saying that the eye includes what he considers to be a design flaw. But from that he jumps to the conclusion that "no intelligent designer" would have designed it that way. Hence there could have been no intelligent designer; the entire process was "mindless."
This prize is a fraud.
The rules state: "After nonacademic in-house review, origin-of-life specialists drawn from many universities and institutes in over forty countries will review the papers on a tiered basis."
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.