Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
I'm not being coy. What you do is design -- intelligent design. You are a living, breathing example of the fact that supernatural actions and agents are neither necessary nor sufficient to put forth an intelligent design hypothesis.
Just as there is need for you to claim that you "created everything," there is no reason to paste that claim onto the ID hypothesis.
Ill just continue to watch you dig deeper and deeper. It has been fun so far.
The bare facts are not what needs to be falsifiable it is the initial hypothesis (hypotheses) that need to be falsifiable. Without that ability, the theory will simply be a collection of hypotheses that may or may not be accurate. In other words it would be a collection of useless hypotheses.
Without the framework of a theory, the 'bare facts' are just random bits of information.
You and a good many others say so often and with a great deal of certitude, but I have no reason to believe this is truly the case. On what basis do you make this sweeping claim? Is this something you've taught yourself? Is it "intuitive?" For that matter is it a "falsifiable" claim?
You want the hands of science tied by a philosphy. Fine. But don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit.
Bare facts and "random bits of information" are not synonymous, but both can be scientific.
Hey, I'm not the one who's in a depression, am I?
"Coy" is exactly the right word. When you pin down any IDer he/she will eventually say the designer is God (Behe did under cross examination). You make "the biotech guy" do the same as God, they must therefore be as God.
So, by my Godness as defined by r9etb, I banish all IDers to the rug under the stairs where they are to remain until the Phorids and Ichneumons are finished. Then they will be removed to an entirely inappropriate rock stratum as fossils.
What a hoot!
Thanks for the ping. Very interesting. Especially that the RNA molecule moves up the DNA molecule with enough strength to pull the glass beads together. I wonder where that strength comes from, and whether the RNA molecule moves in ripples like an inch-worm.
Also, I wonder what happens if the free end of the RNA molecule encounters the middle of a DNA molecule. Does it start from the middle and replicate both ways, or does it first move to the end of the DNA molecule and start replicating from there?
If you had to live in this state with all these leftist nutjobs in chicago running the whole show you would have bouts of it too! ;)
I commented on the post I did cuz it sure looked to me like you were agreeing in a post you meant to make in opposition.
LOL!
Amazing. A "conservative" who elevates feelings to the level of facts.
I'm always amazed at how easily creationists take up Lib tactics. ID is the new PC - trying to re-define reality to conform to a political ideology.
The DNA dependent RNA polymerase starts at a unique place on one DNA strand and goes only in one direction.
I am sure reason has very little to do with what you believe or do not believe.
"On what basis do you make this sweeping claim?"
Because there is no evidence conceivable that could not be used to support the idea of a designer. What possible evidence would you accept as being against the idea of a designer? Is there even a hypothetical fact that could go against the idea of a designer? I know of none.
"Is this something you've taught yourself? Is it "intuitive?"
It's a logical necessity.
"You want the hands of science tied by a philosophy."
More than that, I want the hands of science to be constrained by reality; by EVIDENCE.
"Fine. But don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit."
I don't. Most of the world is perfectly content to follow whatever mystical mush that is thrown before them.
False. I'm not trying to force inscrutability. ID theory places no limits on the designer. "scrutability" is a limit. If you want the designer to be fathomable then you need to start saying what the designers motives are. If we don't know the designer's motives then of necessity the designer is inscrutable.
Please cite where Behe, et al., state that the designer "must be inscrutable."
Behe et al place no limits on the designer. They say nothing about the designer at all. The designer is a cipher, a blank, and therefore inscrutable. I can understand why you are desparate for this to be not so.
LOL
Would be great to see some DNA pictures as long as it wasn't mine. Don't want anyone seeing what's in my geans.
I reckon that places the reality ball firmly in my court, then. Why you feel so obligated to avoid reality is one of those mysteries that science will never solve.
You state"The 100 million corpses evokes the history of Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist Vietnam, Communist Cambodia, Communist North Korea.... All avowedly atheist. And they didn't really rely on modern technology to do it, either, except perhaps the use of firearms rather than swords.
There is a logic problem with this. It's called 'Joint Effect'
Are the deaths the direct result of atheism or the result of some other component of Communism, perhaps the demand within communism that class war is necessary?
Fester has been digging that particular hole for months now. He used to produce the standard anti-evolution canards but for some mysterious reason gave up on them, and now ploughs this singular lonely metaphysical furrow of, "everything is designed because I know that everything is designed and that is science."
I read. You should try it.
Science is continually discussing what can and cannot be studied productively. The list changes with available technology, but it will never include the supernatural. Except occasionally to demonstrate that a specific supernatural explanation is unproductive.
Yes, but it still doesn't explain a thing about the initial conditions and prior states of our universe, which lead up to the grand design we see today.
No. A conservative who understands the purpose and scope of science.
I'm always amazed at how easily creationists take up Lib tactics.
The lib tactics belong to people like you who would perpetrate fraud in the name of science, consistently misinterpret and misrepresent evidence, engage in ad-hominem ad nausaeum, all the while claiming to be intellectually superior.
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.