Posted on 12/22/2005 1:41:44 PM PST by jennyp
Brief excerpt with a link would be nice. Thanks.
>>>I am not a scientist. That is the point. Why can't scientists try to figure it out? Doesn't science try to find answers to questions?
Science does try to find answers to questions, but it looks for the answers in nature and not the supernatural. It deliberately omits theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.
As for IM--You'll observe in some of these crevo rantings that suddenly a little gang of pencil-necks arrive all at the same time to isolate some FR poster who thinks he/she is having a discussion in good faith. Then they heap abuse, cause some tempers to flare, and decamp to high-five each other.
And their comments are so similiar--
So, what we have here are either clones or extra-FR networking, because Freepmail and surfing does not support these timely arrivals.
When Owl_Eagle posted "six years of University biology," there was no mention of having been in any of the classes ... much less having slept through them.
how did you get through "six years of University biology" while remaining ignorant of stuff like this, and so unaware of basic biology that you managed to fall for blatantly bogus stuff like Wells' book?
Ah, the personal attack. The last refuge of the secular humanist who can't make those stubborn facts add up in their favor. The technique speaks well of neither your argument nor your intellect.
I can only imagine what was in the deleted posts.
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Well, if they don't try, they will never know. Maybe some scientists will eventually try.
Agreed, which is why evolution shoud be taught in theology or philosophy also, since it is only a theory that has no hard evidence. Where is that transitory animal??
Of course Creation is not going to win every battle when the entire Country has been brainwashed about evolution for the past 150 years.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
When ID comes up with some "science that shows the pillars of Darwinism to be dead wrong", let us know. By the way, Miller Urey has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, but you knew that already.
Then you'll have no trouble explaining how amino acids formed.
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
I used this example because in both cases, the groups behind both of these have hidden agendas that they want to foist off onto the unsuspecting children in order to 'win the hearts and minds' and I don't want either one 'indoctrinating' children through subterfuge.
It was a terrible post! Long, detailed, and full of big words. Full of links to other articles with equally big words.
If Ichy ever posts it again on his own server somewhere, DO NOT link to it and read it. You have been forewarned. Owl_Eagle should NOT read that post. You'll have an unpleasant flashback to those 6 years of University biology fer shure!
Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
Ichneumon's post 704 on the nature of science.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
Man-chimp evolution. Ichneumon's post 29.
What about gaps in the fossil record? Ichneumon's post 167.
How speciation occurs. Ichneumon's post 217.
Schools don't care what you want. That should be obvious.
Well, what do you expect from God-hating, atheist, Commie-loving, Nazi, eugenicist, murderous, slime-hurling thugs? (Epithets culled from creationist postings. I've left out some of the more feverish soft-core porn imaginings directed at me). So take the opportunity to show us up: why it that nothing in your posts displays a knowledge of basic biology, much less University-level work? Why is Wells so convincing?
I can only imagine what was in the deleted posts.
Me, too. They weren't mine.
I can only imagine what was in the deleted posts.
It was a terrible post! Long, detailed, and full of big words. Full of links to other articles with equally big words.
Hmmm... that sounds EXACTLY like the stuff that gets deleted around here. Based on the quality of the debate I've seen from Darwinists, and the fact that cogent arguements aren't routinely deleted around here, I'll draw another conclusion.
When Darwinists can learn to partake in a logical debate, maybe this could be a worthwhile exercise.
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
O.E., lets say for the sake of argument that you have a big box filled with holes from the other guys theory.
Finding fault is the easy part. It doesn't mean you have something of your own that qualifies as a coherent scientific theory. I am still waiting to see the ID people set forth some falsifiable hypotheses, test them, and publish the results. Seems to me that would be a first start toward showing that their intentions are truly scientific.
O.E., lets say for the sake of argument that you have a big box filled with holes from the other guys theory.
Finally, a cogent discussion.
That's really what 90% of I.D. is (pointing out holes in the other guys theory). People get bogged down on the parimeters ("this is creationism under another guise" or "secular humaism").
My point is we just don't know. Given, the predominant school of thought right now is Darwinism, but there are flaws, and I'd just like to see those acknowledged. We don't know how life began, and we really don't know that much of how we got to where we are. My guess is we'll never know how life began or evolved, but that's just my guess.
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
" Actually, if covered in a class of the philosophy, critical thinking, comparative religions,"
ID and it's unfortunate reliance on Paley are being discussed in philosophy. The following writer makes a fair defence of Paley but demonstrates the no less savant than Thomsas Aquinas had a better grasp of science and its relation to scripture centuries before Paley.
http://www.unav.es/cryf/paley.html
One might note that while Aquinas holds that God's efficient causality is required for created things to remain in existence, he sees no need for God's special intervention for the production of the forms of non-human living things, and even from non-living matter, the reason being that the organisms' activities indicate that their forms or souls are material forms; and thus they exist as a potency of matter to which correspond material agents capable of actualizing them.30
It is said in Genesis I:20: 'The waters produced the reptile having a living soul'; and so it seems that the sensitive souls of reptiles and other animals are from the action of the corporeal elements.» «Souls of this sort do not exceed the principles of natural things. And this is manifest from considering the operation of them.31
Aquinas then would hold that non-human life could be made in a test tube from the appropriate elements by the application of the appropriate agents - something which Paley denies (322, cited below).
Marie I. George (St. John's University, Jamaica, New York).
Will appear in the Science, Philosophy, Theology, ed. John O'Callaghan (South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2002).
Do you even understand the difference between evolution and Darwinism? Maybe you should figure that out before weighing in junior.
Owl_Eagle
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
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.