Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
It is? Even though it has been proven both in the lab and in the field? Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is not real.
Incidentally, If scientists, who thought dogs were extinct for millions of years, were to find a variety of dog fossils, including a miniature Poodle,German Shepherd, and a Great Dane, they would arrange them in order from smallest to largest. This would then be used as evidence how dogs gradually evolved from smaller to larger, (or the reverse, depending on their "beliefs") and state the dogs could not have existed side-by-side. Of course we know better. But could not the "horse series" be an example of the same. Oh, I know, radio-carbon dating, etc. proves their age. What are the assumptions of radio carbon dating, anyway?
Macro-evolution is testable.
Nothing in science is a settled fact.
Some people refute the germ theory of disease.
No they wouldn't, because if they all date from the same time period they cannot be on the same evolutionary branch. And scientists would not assume a change from smaller to larger anyway - why not larger to smaller?
Oh, I know, radio-carbon dating, etc. proves their age
Learn about what you are talking about first. Carbon dating is only used to date objects less than 50,000 years old.
It has happened by accident and eclipses aren't 'perfect.' In the past, the moon was closer to the Earth and it looked bigger than it is now. Moreover, the moon is not always the same distance from the Earth when the there is a solar eclipse. Sometimes it's closer and the sun is completely obscured. Other times, it is farther away and you have a ring of sunlight around the moon. Also, depending on where you are standing, you see either a total ot partial eclipse, or no eclipse at all.
If the system were designed that way, then why these flaws? It's like the geocentric view when epicycles needed to be invented to account for retrograde planetary motion, but a heliocentric model fitted the planetary positions very well.
Actually I thought it was from the face of Jesus appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich. That can't be a random event.
You ere, for you know not the facts.
Taxonomy, as first put forth by Carolus Linnaeus, was done so that we may understand God's wisdom by studying His creation. As written in the preface to a late edition of Systema Naturae:
The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a "natural classification" that would reveal this Order in the universe.
Not at all. If you think this you don't undrstand biology or evolutionary theory.
Limbaugh is a scientist?!?
the equivalent of believing a tornado could sweep across a junkyard an assemble a 747
Neither a tornado nor a 747 biologically replicate so your analogy makes you appear very simpleminded.
to reject intelligent design one must believe a bacterial flagellum
No. One must merely have a rational brain.
Dr. Michael Behe, who could outdebate you or this clown with 99% of his brain tied behind his back
Read the article. Fools who follow pseudo science charlatans have no credibility.
Tell us, what has Derbyshire said that is wrong?
Other than teaching the consensus view of scientists, how would you propose teaching science?
You can't remember how to do a link but you want us to trust your judgment on the biology of peppered moths?
No, they wouldn't.
But could not the "horse series" be an example of the same.
No.
Exactly my point. What one chooses to believe does not make it true or false.
I think most of these yahoo's would teach a Science class thusly....."Class open your Bible to Genesis chapter one".
With instructions to ignore Geology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and Biology whenever the evidence indicates that the earth is LOTS older than 20,000 years.
Consider the DVD http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ . It provides an interesting challenge as to the special place of the earth in the universe, and it's coincidental ability to support bioth life and (true) scientific inquiry.
You obviously aren't following the discussion. The ID advocates pushing the school boards for inclusion of ID are not disagreeing with the fact of evolution or common descent.
Behe, Dembski and Denton all agree that evolution is a fact. They are disagreeing about the mechanism. Even in their scheme, natural selection is a major and undeniable component. There really aren't any well known scientists who doubt common descent.
No, they wouldn't.
But could not the "horse series" be an example of the same.
No.
Excellent! Of course, and argument consists of "a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says"
Then we go with what has the most evidence for it.
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.