Grow Some Testables: Intelligent design ducks the rigors of science.

Slate.com ^ | Sept. 29, 2005 | William Saletan

[RunningWolf]

All the good Coyote names are taken if you have not noticed ;)

Coyotes look cooler. Ever seen then looking for mice and grasshoppers in a meadow.

Wolf

[Coyoteman]

I have watched coyotes and most other critters for hours on end. Snuck up pretty close to a bobcat not too long ago. Not actually sneaking, because he knew I was there, but I got pretty close and got some good pictures.

One of the elders I know goes by the name of Roadkill.

[RunningWolf]

One of the elders I know goes by the name of Roadkill.

There is wisdom and a dry wit in their humor.

Wolf

[MamaLucci]

I would be interested in hearing any follow up on your research on curing chronic ilnnesses. Are you still pursuing it?

[TheCrusader]

"what are more certain than "theory"?"

How about FACTS? Provable, demonstratable, reproducable, observable, FACTS!

Before the theory of evolution is taught in our public school systems it should either be proven factual, or the students should be warned, CLEARLY, that what they are studying is a highly disputed THEORY in the scientific community, it is neither considered as 'fact' nor as a universally accepted hypothesis.

Evolution has never been observed, and these evolutionist fraud's try to counter that insurmountable problem by divertng attention to adaptation, claiming it equals evolution, which is absurd in itself.

Living organisms can adapt to things such as climate changes, over time, but they remain what they originally were, only in an adapted form. An ape may develop more or less hair according to climate, a cheetah may gradually develop a sleeker body and more speed for survival, but the ape remains an ape and the cheetah remains a cheetah. There may be a million other adaptations as well, but the original species do not change species and become man or some other species of life.

The theory of evolution claims that life originated by random chance, out of nothingness, and evolution 'proceeds'. This is a proposition that cannot ever possibly be proven, displayed, observed or recreated. Sadly, this impossible to demonstrate, whimsical theory is given far too much weight and credence by being taught in every public school in America. They know if the beat the 'evolution' drum long and hard enough it will become American dogma inspite of its gross lack of true scientific confirmation. (Though this is not surprising today, this seems to be the age of programmable dupes and media-washed idiots).

There are a lot of other very sound arguments against the theory of evolution, both scientific and rational. Perhaps the greatest detractor of the theory of evolution are the scientists themselves----they simply have no concensus on this hypothesis and the scientific community is about as widely divided on this issue as can possibly be. In fact, so many ligitimate, brilliant scientists view the whole argument as something utterly silly because they realize the quantum leaps of faith that take place in the theory, and that it's pure junk science to them.

Of course, my biggest problem with 'evolution' is that a lot of people believe in it who are in power and position to shove their ridiculous hypothesis down the throats of our children as though they're teaching a universally accepted belief, which it most certainly is NOT.

[TheCrusader]

"Narrator to child: Where do you go? Child: Up in the ceiling. Narrator: Up in the ceiling! Can you tell me what it’s like? Child: I see Mommy helping me."

Very interesting. My daughter used to tell me she flew with Peter Pan. My son had an invisible friend he called "Grebby", whom he played with and talked to very often.

[Dimensio]

How about FACTS? Provable, demonstratable, reproducable, observable, FACTS!

"Facts" are simple statements of single events. Theories are encompassing explanations behind FACTS.

Before the theory of evolution is taught in our public school systems it should either be proven factual,

That's an interesting standard. Since absolutely no theory in science has ever been or ever can be "proven factual" -- because theories are much more than a single statement of "FACT" -- then you seem to be suggesting that no scientific theory of any kind, including atomic theory, germ theory, gravitational theory (aka relativity theory), etc, should ever at any time be taught in our public schools. Why is this?

or the students should be warned, CLEARLY, that what they are studying is a highly disputed THEORY in the scientific community,

But it isn't "highly disputed" in the scientific community. The vast majority of biologists (the opinions of physicists don't really matter in the field of biology) accept the theory as the best explanation for all given evidence and observations.

Evolution has never been observed,

This statement is false.

and these evolutionist fraud's

1) LEARN TO USE APOSTROPHES!!!

2) What frauds? Be specific.

try to counter that insurmountable problem by divertng attention to adaptation, claiming it equals evolution, which is absurd in itself.

What is the insurmountable problem, and why is it insurmountable? And why is adaptation not evolution?

Living organisms can adapt to things such as climate changes, over time, but they remain what they originally were, only in an adapted form.

But then they aren't exactly what they originally were. You're trying to play semantic games, and you're doing it badly.

An ape may develop more or less hair according to climate, a cheetah may gradually develop a sleeker body and more speed for survival, but the ape remains an ape and the cheetah remains a cheetah.

So what barrier prevents and ape from becoming a non-ape or a cheetah from becoming a non-cheetah? And why are you comparing a Family with a Genus? Are you saying that adaptations can never change an organism beyond its Family classification or its Genus classification? Or is it organism-dependent? While a Cheetah stays a Cheetah, could an ape of one Genus become an ape of another Genus?

There may be a million other adaptations as well, but the original species do not change species and become man or some other species of life.

Why not? Be specific.

The theory of evolution claims that life originated by random chance, out of nothingness,

I'll stop here. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about how life originated. Please learn what the theory of evolution actually states, because if you can't even get that much right, you aren't qualified to explain what might be "wrong" with the theory.

[RunningWolf]

Crusader,

How many that disqualify one from the theory of evolution are actually scientists themselves?

Oddly, You might be disqualified by a non-scientist here, not in the scientific fields that apply here.

Wolf

[TheCrusader]

"How many that disqualify one from the theory of evolution are actually scientists themselves?"

I'm not a scientist, but I'm friends with two physicists and a chemist; one is Catholic, one is akin to a deist, one is a non-believer; all three are highly successful scientists who have looked at the theory of evolution. I have asked them what they thought about the evolution theory. All three are amused at the theory, including the hypothetical origin of human life.

It's safe to say there is just too much speculation and not enough solid science involved for them to think of this theory with any seriousness. And like myself, they believe there is probably more agenda involved (in pushing 'evolution') than there is trustworthy science. ~ Just my two cents.

[RunningWolf]

I agree. I was pointing out that perhaps some of the ones disqualifying you here are are not actually a scientist either, a demented sort comes to mind.

While I am not a physicist, chemist, or a genetic engineer, that does not mean I fail to understand those things enough to make a judgment about evolution.

And like myself, they believe there is probably more agenda involved (in pushing 'evolution') than there is trustworthy science.

Absolutely I agree with that.

The ChiComs have an answer its called Marxist atheism

Party’s secret directives on how to eradicate religion and ensure the victory of atheism The Department of Propaganda has prepared a new paper to promote atheism and ban religions and superstitions. It is intended to stop conversions among leading party cadres and youth.

Beijing (AsiaNews) – ‘Westernising’ and ‘disintegrating’ trends in the name of religion threaten China and the government must “be patient and meticulous in imperceptibly influencing the people”, especially the young and leading party cadres, so as to stop the “growth of religions, cultic organisations and superstitions and strengthen Marxist atheism”.

These are the main points presented in a paper prepared by the Department of Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to stop the growth of religion and spirituality among the Chinese.

Wolf

[TheCrusader]

"Facts" are simple statements of single events. Theories are encompassing explanations behind FACTS."

Yes, and thanks for helping me make my point.

Theories are used in two ways. Some theories help explain the internal workings of universal law and facts of nature, while others, (like the theory of evolution), attempt to effectuate ends and universal laws by their very own postulations. Some centuries ago most of the world's greatest scientists believed the earth was flat. This means all theories are untrustworthy until they can become observable or recreated, which leaves 'evolution' a mere speculation and those who believe it as dogma as self deluded victims of their own pride.

You are attempting, (very unsuccessfully), to link evolution's theories with demonstratable, universally agreed upon facts. Simply because theories are what help explain universal laws does not mean that all theories are attached to universal law and truth. As I demonstrated above, theories can be used to promote false beliefs. The 'evolution' theory remains very unpersuasive because of all its scientific shortcomings, that's why it needs to be constantly defended by those who seek to indoctrinate others with its teaching. But nice try.

[TheCrusader]

"a demented sort comes to mind."

LOL, good one. :o)

[TheCrusader]

"Evolution has never been observed,"

"This statement is false."

Please explain why it's false, and where/what evolution has been observed.

[RunningWolf]

Please explain why it's false, and where/what evolution has been observed.

That will never happen from these sorts.

You are 'put on trial' before the cult of cosmo-evo flying spaghetti monster tribunal, Does the attorney, the judge ever answer your questions? No! Part of the 'game' is you are against evolution, not the person prognosticating evolution.
Also your faith as it were is converted into a 'deity' among thousands of deities to sit there like a brass ornament.These kind of messages are hidden in the 'arguments'.

I picked up these things and more almost immediately. I could go on with more illustrations but will not.

Wolf

[TheCrusader]

"the cult of cosmo-evo flying spaghetti monster tribunal"

hahahaha, I love that one.

What's interesting to me is how the 'flying spaghetti monster tribunal' hold such profound conviction in something that can't be observed or proven by science; yet they puzzle at Christians for believing in a God that can't be observed or proven by science.

It seems to me that anybody, if he is gifted with intelligence and logic, would accept the work of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator as a far more convincing explanation for the mystery of the universe and life than the kinky dynamic of a causeless, nebulous 'Big Bang', effectuated by nothingness and working in tandom with 'random chance'.

[RunningWolf]

"the cult of cosmo-evo flying spaghetti monster tribunal"

I make up words they don't like it, and muddy up the grammar etc.

I hear you, and yes that is very interesting, I picked up on that right away. There seems to be a common denominator to the big bang and all the other counter theories, who owns them? man.

Wolf