This is about as accurate as the arguments. One can't argue logic with beliefs. It just doesn't work.
Close Enough?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Posted on 09/29/2005 1:41:16 PM PDT by dukeman
"The evolutionist stomps his feet screaming that the theory of evolution is as well established as the theory of gravity. But that simply is not true."
What does truth have to do with the theory of evolution?
God created democrats too.....can we really call that intelligent? :)
Darwinism needs to be subject to the same hard scrutiny as any scientific theory....its not the end of the world to state that there are flaws in the theory, but it seems it is the end of the world to say this for many, if not most, Darwinists.
Lighten up evo devos...!
I have no problem saying evolution is just a theory....as long as they also state that nobody has come with a *better* theory that fits the observered facts.
Another author who doesn't know science.
"Evolutionists" are constantly trying to falsify their theories. They do not for a moment think their theories are infallible. That's one of the differences between evolution and CS; the latter do think their beliefs are infallible and are trying to do science without learning how.
When you already know all the answers, scientific method isn't very important then, it it?
No point reading past this. Anybody that thinks that ID is scientifically disciplined is a moron. ID has no science to it at all. It is superstition, not science.
HypnoToad (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-29-05 02:08 PM
Original message
If everybody cut back on electricity^, would that curtail global warming?
^ meaning stopping usage of tvs, computers, everything NON-ESSENTIAL?
Let's face it: How essential to our lives is "business"?
Why not reclaim our agricultural roots but maintain the transport element as it is necessary to plant and harvest the crops necessary to sustain us all?
Would EVERYBODY be willing to ditch their ipods in favor of more localized communities with real, live, entertainment?
Or if we shut everything off, would it be too late to stop the global warming problem?
I see lots of news articles whining about global warming. Just as they do all sorts of other problems that have been created by mankind rather than God. Yet none of them even bothers to think of a solution.
Y'all can flame me all you want now. But the choice is simple: A radical change now that might just spare us all... or change nothing and we ALL die once we waste energy resources beyond a certain point, baking our planet in the process just as we would a pizza or gerbil pie. Even the mega-wealthy and they are the ones who'd ultimately decide what happens.
Okay, two things:
1. Like, far out!
2. What's a gerbil pie? Please try to maintain some level or decorum in your replies....
If a student asks, "What's 2 plus 2?" the teacher can give a factual, definitive answer; the answer is known and provable.
If a student asks, "Where did the Universe come from?" the teacher should say, "We don't know. Ask your parents what their beliefs are. My beliefs don't matter to you. The school board's beliefs don't matter to you. The Supreme Court's beliefs don't matter to you. Because nobody can say for sure and all answers are based on faith of one kind or another."
I'd like the "Ask your parents" reply mandated in other matters as well; such as the proper installation of a condom.
It is.
its not the end of the world to state that there are flaws in the theory,
It isn't. Evolutionary theory isn't monolithic, and it isn't unchanged since Darwin.
but it seems it is the end of the world to say this for many, if not most, Darwinists.
Pure nonsense. Scientists ask that you bring evidence to support an alternate theory, which will then be evaluated, reviewed and debated. Creationists and ID adherents are unable to bring that.
As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. Intelligent design theory merely infers, but does not attempt to identify, a designer from evidence that even evolutionists agree has the appearance of being designed.
So disciplined and modest, in fact, that the ID proponent restricts himself entirely to shrugging his shoulders and saying "sure looks like somebody or something may have designed this little thingy." Now there's a scientific undertaking today's teenagers will just love.
And I notice that the author of this article didn't even try to identify any specific evidence of design or any criteria by which the existence of design may be established or ruled out. I wonder why?
Naw, ID isn't religious.
Heard this on Glenn Beck:
"Look through a telescope at Mars.
If you see an office building on it, evolution would say it just happened by chance. Intelligent Design says, no, someone built it."
Evolutionist fear what would happen if their theory is challenged, truly investigated without bias, or questioned IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. They then attack the scientist who does question it (or the guy who posts something against it), question his credentials, call him pathetic, or try to convince a court or school board that he's insane.
Why is it such a huge threat to say that there are possibly other options than we went from goo, to zoo, to YOU?
Today's evolutionary scientist are willing to question anything EXCEPT evolution. The real question should be WHY?
"Look through a telescope at Mars. If you see an office building on it, evolution would say it just happened by chance. Intelligent Design says, no, someone built it."
So you and Glenn Beck have some kind of inside knowledge about self-reproducing, organic, extraterrestrial office buildings? Tell me more.
Ahhhh, the essence of Moonbatism....scaaaary!
Do you wear a tyvek suit and self contained breathing apparatus when you visit DU? I would.
1-- You don't really understand the difference between theoretical-math based quantum mechanics and observation based quantum mechanics. The former (math-based) says a whole bunch of crazy stuff, like we can violate the first law under certain conditions. The latter (science, observation based) says the first law is good to go.
2-- Under infinite time and with infinite combinations life could evolve from non-life. Under early earth conditions (best of our knowledge) and given the mechanisms of evolution and the time involved, there is good reason to believe an intelligence is responsible for many historical occurrences: origin of life, establishment of eukaryotes, evolution of the human brain from the chimp brain (time constraints and mechanisms are huge on this one).
Inevitability only applies to systems with infinities, not practical, real systems.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Yeah, but what's a gerbil pie?
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.