Posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:48 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Didn't you read the quote? You said, "I've heard it all. . . " So I said you must be Omniscient. What an open mind you have there. Dismiss arguments before you've ever heard them. I guess you call that science.
As far as answers I've heard no new ones here, that's for sure. But knock me out if you want...
Who sets the boundries of a theory and why are they set where they are? Who determines the bounries must remain where they have been set?
What does "novel" and "cardinal" as related to "current biological science and information theory" mean to you?
Hahaha! A hundred and fifty years of research and still no proof? What a joke.
This thread is icky...will you buy me something?
why are random selection and intelligent design mutually exclusive.
Since all scientific theories, and laws, remain unproven, this means you must think that electromagnetism, conservation of energy and molecular theory (all about 150 years old) are "a joke" as well.
- Some new ability unique to man like reason and communication?
- Maybe mind bullets to electronically input our posts directly into the reply box on FreeRepublic?
Evolution produced human imagination itself yet we can't begin to imagine what it might have in store for the future.
This so like DUDE man!
What part of the scientific method don't you understand? It's been explained enough on these threads--science cannot "prove" anything! It works by building up a preponderance of evidence in support of theories. Theories are not "wild guesses" as some believe, but well-defined tools for getting an understanding of how things work.
Science can't prove gravity, electrons, water always flows downhill, or anything else! It can show that these are pretty likely or demonstrate a good understanding of what's going on.
But in spite of the constant reminders on these threads, and all the dictionaries, encyclopedias and other sources, we still get this constant, unremitting drivel that "evolution is not proved!"
In your case it is Hahaha! A hundred and fifty years of research and still no proof? What a joke.
Please tell me, are you getting all of your information from the creation pages? Are you totally ignorant of the methods of science? Or are you being deliberately dense to tweak people?
It really doesn't do you any credit to constantly ignore the methods and rules of science like this. Might as well ask the bible to predict the next race down at the track. Of course it doesn't do that!
Science has its own specific method of operating; it works on data, hypothesis, and theory. Proof is not in there anywhere. (Science may not always be right, but its usually safer not to bet the rent money against it.)
It's not entirely clear since advocates of "intelligent design" steadfastly refuse to say or postulate anything about how (or when, or where, or by what/whom) acts of "design" are actually implemented. But they do assert (baldly) that acts of design are non-natural. IOW they are "inferred" when we can eliminate (don't ask me how) "natural causes".
Yeah, I know it's a mess, and intentionally shielding your mechanism from scrutiny is completely unscientific... But don't complain to me. This is what ID'ers say that ID is.
Oh, I heard it decades ago. CRI has been tilting at this windmill for years and years.
And, it does not make X impossible, just improbable no matter what.
This statement is meaningless, it is self contradictory. The premise "improbable no matter what" is invalid and self-contradictory. To demonstrate:
All things that are improbable No Matter What are impossible.
X is a thing that is improbable No Matter What
Therefore
X is impossible.
Now, if you want to assert that X is both possible and is improbable then the conversation ends because you don't understand the contradiction inherent in the proposition and there is no use discussing anything with you.
The whole "but it's _possible_" defence is precisely what scientists are complaining to creationists about, and saying that science has error bars and all that, and then in the end to say "well, it may be more improbable than any event imaginable but you can't say it's impossible" is an abandonment of the entire establishment that was used to get away from the creationists in the first place.
Typical Red Herring, Straw Dog and any number of other fallacies. This isn't what scientists say, they never say "you can't say it's impossible" because this is the Fallacy of Proving the Negative. Science never deals in what one "can't say."
The issue isn't about "what's possible." The issue is "evidence." Science depends upon "evidence."
You ain't got one piece of "evidence" to hang your hat on for a "Designer." Not one. Creationism is structured to prove the very thing for which there is no evidence. You just won't admit the fact.
Right! Glad you agree. This so like DUDE man!
Uncertain of the reference. Is this something on network TV?
No, just the fantasy that you used to be an ape.
When we eliminate "natural causes," the average lifespan will increase.
Re: wordy. I do believe we are not mere products of random chance. eh? Having shown that we are all results of a great deal of random chance, you assert you "do not believe" in it.
Do you really believe that every spermatozoon and ovum were uniquely, intelligently directed, and purposely made? Do you believe this for every one of the 6 billion humans now living? What is the problem with accepting randomness being in effect in the millions of years past?
In large part the structure of the theory itself and the nature of it's mechanism determines the bounds of the theory. Of course research and reflection may indicate that a theory's model or mechanism can and does explain more than first thought, and so the theory might be "extended," but the nature of the mechanism will again set effective limits.
Consider for instance the mechanism of natural selection. In its very nature it necessarily presupposes certain things. For instance that there is something to "select". So the entities to which it applies must have the property of superfecundity, or what Darwin called "ratio of increase". IOW they must produce more of themselves than the environment can potentially support. This means that you must have something that reproduces, and if selection is to have an effect on these populations of reproducing things then there must be properties of inheritance operative. The reproducing, environment dependent, superfecund entities that pass traits to offspring must also exhibit variation in inheritable traits if the mechanism of natural selection is to be applicable to them.
The only entities that possess all these traits: reproduction, inheritance, variation, superfecundity, etc are LIVING ORGANISMS. Therefore evolutionary theory presupposes the existence of living organisms. Their existence is a boundary condition of the theory.
You didn't hear a word I wrote.
From your response you are willing to let science go down the tubes because your religion speaks otherwise. Who then will protect you from the cold, from disease, from barbarians? Who will grow your food? When the scimitars come slashing, have you kept up on your fencing lessons? Because if you trash science there will be no modern army, no efficient weapons, no bullets.
Trash science and the scientific method at your peril!
Diogenes would be very pleased with your cynicism. He'd probably hand you the latern and retire.
Geesh! Look at your own argument here. You're basically saying, "since it's all B.S. my faith fits right in." IOW you're saying your faith is b.s. (Or just a relativist choice.)
Haven't gotten there yet, you're just touchy.
As far as answers I've heard no new ones here, that's for sure.
I did, I guess you were so busy looking for personal attacks you missed it. Again. . .
OK, if life cannot come out of a dead Universe, then what conclusion do you draw?
But knock me out if you want...
Wouldn't be useful, you appear to already be asleep.
Who sets the boundries of a theory and why are they set where they are? Who determines the bounries must remain where they have been set?
How do you know there are theories? How do you know such theories have boundaries? Who determined that theories have boundaries? Who determined they must be set? What do any of these words mean? How do you know they mean what you think they mean? Do you have a dictionary? Do you speak the English language? How do you know it is English and not Spanglish? How do you know anything? How do you know you exit?
How do you know the Gospels aren't a fraud? How do you know Israel actually existed as a nation 2000 years ago? How do you know that Columbus sailed across the Atlantic? How do you know that you aren't in a Box created by a Demon and all this is an illusion created to deceive you? How would you know you actually existed this being the case?
How do you know that the Universe really didn't come out of the naval of Vishnu as He was sleeping forever in eternity? How do you know that Krishna didn't create the Universe when He woke up in that naval and decided he wanted to have 10,000 wives?
How do you know anything? How do you know that the terms "novel" and "cardinal" as related to "current biological science and information theory" have any meaning to anyone, let alone me.
Don't answer my queston with a question, Parsifal, you are out-gunned.
Again, in case you were sleeping and missed it.
OK, if life cannot come out of a dead Universe, then what conclusion do you draw?
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.