Skip to comments.
Five critiques of Intelligent Design
Edge.org ^
| September 3, 2005
| Marcelo Gleiser, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Scott Atran, Daniel C. Dennett
Posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:48 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 481-499 next last
To: Ignatius J Reilly
Desecrators of really cute fashions items will burn in Hell!!!!
121
posted on
09/08/2005 2:43:13 PM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: ShadowAce
clarification accepted. thank you.
122
posted on
09/08/2005 2:44:12 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
I believe in something greater than myself, and I do not believe that "something" is random chance.
I'm not assigning explicit conscious deliberate motivation to your words. Sorry if you took it that way.
However, the core idea of the creationists and the IDists is vain.
123
posted on
09/08/2005 2:44:47 PM PDT
by
ml1954
To: ShadowAce
gravity is till undergoing significant refinement and testing - it got demoted from Law to Theory in the 1930's
124
posted on
09/08/2005 2:46:16 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: ShadowAce
Gravity Newton's theory of gravity completely breaks down at the subatomic level and conflicts with relativity. Einstein's theory of gravity solved the Newtonian problems, but then it runs afoul of quantum theory, which opens a bunch more questions. And quantum gravity theory is still in the relatively early stages of development.
To: King Prout
OK, but I'm not stepping off the edge of the Grand Canyon to 'test' the theory.
126
posted on
09/08/2005 2:47:58 PM PDT
by
SeaLion
(I wanted to be an orphan, but my parents wouldn't let me)
To: longshadow
"tarted up" -- good description.
Another description is 'putting lipstick on a pig'.
127
posted on
09/08/2005 2:48:29 PM PDT
by
ml1954
To: JasonSC
Nowhere in your definition is the word "proved" or "proven" used. I see "statements" and "principles"...nothing I'd care to bet my soul on.
Your faith does not trump my faith.
128
posted on
09/08/2005 2:48:29 PM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: King Prout
I understand. But that's why I chose it. It is considered theory, yet I can't think of anyone or any experiment that would deny its existance, can you?
That pretty much defines "reasonable doubt" doesn't it?
129
posted on
09/08/2005 2:49:18 PM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: SeaLion
no one doubts the often observed and rather uniformly repeatable observation that "unsupported stuff falls down, goes splat/boom/thud"
the explanation concerning the "how" of it is the theory of gravity, and it is most definitely a matter undergoing continual testing and refinement.
130
posted on
09/08/2005 2:51:11 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: ml1954
Another description is 'putting lipstick on a pig'. I'd rather attempt that than the Grand Canyon gravity test....
...Darn, didn't work: Hilary Clinton looks just the same
131
posted on
09/08/2005 2:51:23 PM PDT
by
SeaLion
(I wanted to be an orphan, but my parents wouldn't let me)
To: ShadowAce
nope.
dont confuse the observations of the fact with an explanation for the "how" of the fact.
132
posted on
09/08/2005 2:51:58 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: Deb
you call that green rag really cute? Sure does put a nice shine on my car though
To: King Prout
dont confuse the observations of the fact with an explanation for the "how" of the fact. OK. Like I said--I'm not a scientist. I thought Newton's theory was that gravity existed--not the how of it.
134
posted on
09/08/2005 2:53:37 PM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: ml1954
I dont know which perspective is more skewed...evolution or your thought process on the
"...core idea of the creationists and the IDists is vain.".
![](http://www.steelheadnotebook.net/forum/Smileys/smiley1/rolleyes.gif)
Thats a puzzler.
135
posted on
09/08/2005 2:54:36 PM PDT
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: Ignatius J Reilly
You have obviously stolen someone else's sweater.
136
posted on
09/08/2005 2:54:45 PM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: ShadowAce
Newtons theory of universal gravitational attraction didn't just posit that gravity EXISTED, it gave a mathematical formula that can be utilized to observe and predict the universe.
137
posted on
09/08/2005 2:56:52 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: ml1954
Another description is 'putting lipstick on a pig'. Excellent!
To: ml1954
However, the core idea of the creationists and the IDists is vain.I think of the idea as rather humbling, not vain.
139
posted on
09/08/2005 2:58:20 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: RadioAstronomer
"Will answer this evening. :-)"
RadioA, as a fan of many of your posts I would love to see this, please ping me when you reply.
BTW ever read 'Godel, Escher, Bach an Eternal Golden Braid' by ?? can't remember his name but it's a great book. We even had an honors math course in college that spent the whole year going over it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 481-499 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson