Skip to comments.
Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
Tech Central Station ^
| 11/10/2005
| Uriah Kriegel
Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 861-863 next last
To: music_code
What does evolution teach? That there is no God.
Evolution "teaches" no such thing. Only the truly ignorant or dishonest claim that it does.
201
posted on
11/10/2005 1:01:13 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: JohnnyM
"There are things like skin color"
There is a greater difference between the skin color of an African and an Irishman than there is between the skin color of either and a chimp. In fact, there are human beings whose skin color would match that of a chimps.
"and musculature,"
Musculature (and body posture) is mostly based on the skeleton.
"what I may not be able to classify is a human skull and an ape skull."
Specialized forensic scientists can determine what a human's face looks like based only on their skull. By studying how muscles attach to the bones, they can make very accurate guesses as to what the facial structure would look like. Someone who is an expert at looking at the skulls of different animals would have absolutely no problem telling the difference between a human skull and a chimp skull.
So, what exactly is the major difference between a chimp and a human that cannot be seen from a skeleton?
202
posted on
11/10/2005 1:02:05 PM PST
by
Sofa King
(A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
To: Nicholas Conradin
"AFAIK there are no statements in the US Constitution speaking to scientific theory. Maybe the author means some other constitution."
congress is authorized by the constitution to promote the advancement of the sciences and the useful arts.
ID is neither science nor a useful art.
that about covers *that* aspect of what the constitution has to say on the matter, no?
203
posted on
11/10/2005 1:04:08 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
To: Ichneumon
Even the Vatican has managed to badly misread Scripture: Well you won't get any argument from me there.
Sadly, a lot of folks even today are stuck back in the 1600's when it comes to how they try to find the truth about how the world works.
Do you believe that God literally wrote the 10 commandments on tablets of Stone, or is that a fairy tale?
Did God create the heavens and the earth? Did he create the life forms as noted in Genesis, or did they just evolve without any divine intervention?
To: Dimensio
Evolution "teaches" no such thing. Only the truly ignorant or dishonest claim that it does.Of course it does. It posits that everything came into being through the mechanism of enormous amounts of time, endless combinations of chance/probability, and the presence of matter, which is apparently deemed eternal.
205
posted on
11/10/2005 1:05:53 PM PST
by
music_code
(Atheists can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman.)
To: Junior
"Scientists aren't trying to classify anything as ape or human"
They do attempt to classify fossils and skeletal remains as belonging to some species or another, how else would they know if they found a new species or not?
JM
206
posted on
11/10/2005 1:06:27 PM PST
by
JohnnyM
To: music_code
Of course it does. It posits that everything came into being through the mechanism of enormous amounts of time, endless combinations of chance/probability, and the presence of matter, which is apparently deemed eternal.
Wrong. It posits that existing diverse life on earth originated from common ancestry. That's it. It doesn't even lay claim to the origin of the ancestral life forms from which everything descended. It makes no claims as to the origin of anything beyond that, including manner. Evolution does not claim that matter is "eternal"; this is a strawman that you have invented so that you can "prove" a point because you can't make it by addressing what evolution actually is.
207
posted on
11/10/2005 1:07:57 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Nicholas Conradin
208
posted on
11/10/2005 1:08:44 PM PST
by
Tarpon
To: Junior
Why is there the law of gravity and the law of aerodynamics? Why is there light wave and sound waves? There is no evolutionary reasons for TV, radio, computers, airplanes to work.
Why isn't deformity the rule with life? Shouldn't we see more people and animals with two heads or three eyes or 6 fingers? Evolution precludes that chance gets it right. It is sort of like the wind building a dam. It is possible but usually we find living things like beavers and people build dams.
To: JohnnyM
Yes, they try to classify the remains by species. But that is not the same as classifying something as "ape" or "man."
210
posted on
11/10/2005 1:10:30 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: Sofa King
"Someone who is an expert at looking at the skulls of different animals would have absolutely no problem telling the difference between a human skull and a chimp skull."
This is not the case according to Ichy's post. There is a lot of, as he put it, "fuzzyness" when it comes to classifying certain skulls.
JM
211
posted on
11/10/2005 1:10:38 PM PST
by
JohnnyM
To: BlazingArizona
Are any scientists out there willing to scientifically test the hypothesis, or are they going to take natural selection on faith, as with "human-induced climate change"?
You'd think that the ID big-shots would be keen on testing their own 'hypothesis', but they're not. In court Behe said he prefers to spend time with "
more fruitful endeavors" (like writing books he can sell, I guess). In other words: they want others to do the job for them.
But hypothetically, if a scientist proves that a feature thought to be irreducibly complex could evolve by natural selection, they could still point to another feature and say "well, THIS one IS irreducibly complex". This happened when the irreducibly complexity of the bacterial flagellum was debunked (part of it has a different functions in other organisms).
212
posted on
11/10/2005 1:10:51 PM PST
by
anguish
(while science catches up.... mysticism!)
To: P-Marlowe
Do you believe that God literally wrote the 10 commandments on tablets of Stone, or is that a fairy tale?I believe what the Bible says. Moses did not come down from Mt. Sinai with metaphors in his hands.
Did God create the heavens and the earth? Did he create the life forms as noted in Genesis, or did they just evolve without any divine intervention?
Yes, God created the heavens and the earth. This is stated clearly in Genesis 1:1. And yes, God created the life forms as noted in Genesis.
Do you believe the Bible, or not?
213
posted on
11/10/2005 1:11:10 PM PST
by
music_code
(Atheists can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman.)
To: conserv371
Now how are those "problems with evolution?" You haven't even addressed anything in the theory yet. Do you honestly know anything about it other than what the creationist sites spout?
214
posted on
11/10/2005 1:12:05 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: conserv371
Why is there the law of gravity and the law of aerodynamics?
Scientists observed consistent patterns that were easily represented with statements useful for making future predictions regarding observations.
Do you know what a "law" is in the context of science?
Why is there light wave and sound waves?
That's not a question that science can answer. At least, not yet.
There is no evolutionary reasons for TV, radio, computers, airplanes to work.
Why would any rational person expect a biological science to address the workings of computers, airplanes, televisions or radios?
Why isn't deformity the rule with life?
Why should it be?
Shouldn't we see more people and animals with two heads or three eyes or 6 fingers?
No.
Evolution precludes that chance gets it right. It is sort of like the wind building a dam. It is possible but usually we find living things like beavers and people build dams.
You're misrepresenting how evolution works. Changes that ultimately drive evolution are small in scale, not freak occurances like someone born with two heads.
215
posted on
11/10/2005 1:14:24 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: music_code
Do you believe the Bible, or not? Just check out my forum page. :-)
To: JohnnyM
"This is not the case according to Ichy's post. There is a lot of, as he put it, "fuzzyness" when it comes to classifying certain skulls."
That's because those skulls are neither chimp nor human skulls. They're something inbetween the common ancestor and a modern human skull, representing a point along the way on a smooth continuum, thus the "fuzzyness" that TOE predicts.
Are you giving up on your original challenge to it?
217
posted on
11/10/2005 1:16:58 PM PST
by
Sofa King
(A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
To: Junior
Do you honestly know anything about it other than what the creationist sites spout?
I'm not even sure that he or she knows that much. I've never seen a creationist website that brings up the lack of explanation for sound waves as a weakness of the theory of evolution.
218
posted on
11/10/2005 1:17:23 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Wrong. It posits that existing diverse life on earth originated from common ancestry. That's it. It doesn't even lay claim to the origin of the ancestral life forms from which everything descended. It makes no claims as to the origin of anything beyond that, including manner. Evolution does not claim that matter is "eternal"You cannot have it both ways. You say it teaches that the existing diverse life on earth originated from common ancestry. Very well. By what process, I ask? By a mechanism which no one has ever seen in action, no one can explain, for which no evidence exists, etc...?
If you propose this irrational explanation, why should I or anyone else believe what you say regarding what evolution supposedly does or doesn't say about the origin of life? Change over time is but one facet of the grand lie of evolution.
Where did the common ancestral life forms come from? Did they evolve too? From what?
219
posted on
11/10/2005 1:19:07 PM PST
by
music_code
(Atheists can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman.)
To: Junior
"But that is not the same as classifying something as "ape" or "man.""
Ichy's post mentions the trouble creationist scientists have in classifying homminid fossils, and if these creationists believe that there distinct boundaries between animals know as kinds, then this kind of classification should be easy.
However, in that example, it seems that the deck is stacked, because you are telling someone to classify a fossil without any other information necessary for classification.
JM
220
posted on
11/10/2005 1:20:32 PM PST
by
JohnnyM
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 861-863 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