Posted on 10/12/2005 10:43:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Science and religion have a basic premise, you have to accept either that matter always existed or that God always existed.
Both stop at that premise and go no farther.
No, you don't.
My sense is that ID is not a new theory, but is instead a criticism of evolution, the current theory.
The criticism is that natural selection is not an effective means to bring about the come complexity of all of life as we know it in the time that we have.
I do consider an "organizing principle" to be an intelligence. In my view, "natural selection" was proposed as an organizing principle, and it has time related shortcomings. The actual organizing principle is able to bring about the complexity we see in the time that is available.
Clearly you are insulting my intelligence. There is no need for you to be condescending and rude. I could give a sh!t whether you think you are smarter than me or even if you really are.
I have tried only to ask questions and I don't need you to be the teacher, I am perfectly capable of doing my own research so take your link and your attitude and shove them.
Those on this forum who think they are so much smarter than everyone else and who think they are authorities on subjects and everyone else is a retard is sickening.
I'm sorry I even responded to this post. Yes, I realize you will critcize me and even make fun of me for leaving. "Didn't want to do the research" "Didn't want to be bothered with facts". Whatever. I'll do it on my own without the help of patronizing people.
Science "stops" at the creation of matter?
Ok. I guess we'll have to ignore those things like pharmacuitical research and things.
Those geologists will have to find another job.
No more nuclear power cause the physicists will have to get jobs at McDonalds.
And the subject at hand, biology, and how it works, will have to quit that work on crop research.
Thanks for confirming that I had your number way back up when you asked for evidence. Your mind was closed when you got here, and when you discovered that there are people who actually know what they're talking about and you don't, you go off in a huff.
I shouldn't have bothered to give you the link in post #31, but I thought that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong and you'd actually be interesting in learning.
You aren't.
To: cynicom
No idea what you are talking about.
It's in the reading assignment.
And there also supposedly was no space in which to make that first energy or matter. After all, the universe did not yet exist.
Religion is the same, no one will offer what was before God..
Both fall back to the premise that you have to "understand" or believe that God and matter ALWAYS WERE.
As someone else has posted, we both came from a common ancestor. It just looked, to us, like an ape. An ape would probably think it looked like, well, a little hairy human.
As for the "Big bang", who says that this isn't the part that was willed into existence, and everything else fell, eventually, into place..
Actually, matter can and does appear and disappear as long as it does not violate the time frame under the uncertainty principle. Or conservation of mass/energy holds except for very small amounts of matter over very short periods of time. Or part of you has a small probability of temporarily existing on the moon as we speak. See also electron tunnelling. See also quantum mechanics.
There are also real virtual particles. How is this ? Theorist often predict "virtual" particles" that do not exist except if you give them a little energy bump, they will materialize in the real world with more energy than you gave them and with the exact properties you would expect.
I appreciate that you want to learn more about it. That's great.
The first thing we should probably do is define the word "theory." It does not mean "guess." The word does not imply that it's uncertain or dodgy. A theory is "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers."
In order for a theory to be worthy of the name, one must be able to make predictions of future discoveries. Evolution passes that test - "gaps" in the theory are constantly being filled by new discoveries. Each new discovery strengthens evolution by providing more evidence to support it.
In addition, a theory must be falsifiable. That means there must be the possibility of new information that could prove the theory wrong. This is also true of evolution - for example, if scientists found a Homo Sapiens skeleton millions of years old, that would disprove evolution.
One major problem with ID, and the reason that it's not worthy of being called a theory, is that is cannot be falsified. There's no conceivable piece of data that would prove the non-existence of an Intelligent Designer. That makes it un-scientific. It's philosophy, theology, but not science.
That's true. But not true for everyone. There are those who try to use it for that purpose--without success.
You are correct.
Actually, I was taught in the 1970's by a deacon in our church who was also a science professor, that the Bible and science does not conflict. Since the universe was created by God, then by definition the universe that science studies and God's Word in the Bible must be the same. If there appears to be a conflict, then it is our translation of one or the other that's wrong.
When the subject is the study of the universe, then there is many orders of magnitude more evidence within that universe than there is information in the Bible. So likely the correct translation for questions about the universe will be found there, not in the Bible.
Questions of spirituality though, are *not* found in the universe, and must be discovered through the Bible.
See, there it is. I don't have a "number". I am perfectly willing to listen to people who know what they are talking about, but also would like to be treated with respect.
Don't tell me what I am willing to or not to learn either. You have no idea. Your ego makes you believe that.
You ARE patroninzing.
Basic position, accept, believe, or acknowledge.
That question is completely irrelevant to the subject of evolution.
That's your right, but why don't you "buy it"?
There's lots of evidence to back up evolution. Genertics, for example, is entirely based upon the theoretical framework of evolution.
Do you not "buy it" because you don't believe the volumes of evidence, or because you don't want to buy it? I thought you were interested in actually learning - why close your mind before you start?
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.