Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
I hope you know you are quoting satire, and aren't using it as a fact.
No, it isn't, although that claim is a favorite piece of *creationist* dogma.
it must be a violation of the "Faith Based" taching of Darwinism to point out that there is other contrasting information and that Darwin's Theory isn't the complete universe regarding "The Origin of The Species" since Darwin doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of the species in his book of that name.
Wrong again, on about three separate points, not the least of which is the confusion between "origin of species" and "origin of life".
The only way someone would object to a statement that there are other theories, is if they are so dogmatic that it is their "Religeon" and any questioning of the dogma should be treated like Copericus was when he talked about the earth going around the sun.
Nonsense. The reason that people objcct to the claim "that there are other theories" is because the other proposed "alternatives" are not, in fact, *theories*. The word "theory" has a specific meaning in science, and it's a misrepresentation to say that "ID" or other what-if's are "other theories", because they are in fact not theories at all.
Hey, I have a novel idea -- why don't all you folks who don't understand what science is about refrain from trying to dictate to schools how to run their science classes?
Yes, Oh Wise and Mighty Scientist! I bow to your great wisdom!
Alcohol is lighter than water, yet they don't separate in your margarita.
The separation of oil and water has nothing to do with their density (only the fact that their separation forms layers in a gravitational field is due to their density, but they will still separate into droplets in zero-G), and their separation *is* a valid example of self-organizing order.
I do agree with some folks here that there are just to many threads on the crevo debate. So, tomorrow I am going to start a thread on Darkons.
Guaranteed to blow some minds.
No need, I'd be happy if people who don't know a subject well would just stop trying to make invalid analogies and arguments and claims.
Leave that to the liberals.
There is enough misinformation out there already, it serves no one to add to it.
What's the big deal? You quote a fine example of Darwin attempting to disarm his would be detractors and get a fair hearing: "Of course, Old Chap, all sorts of objections will occur to you, and I may be grand fool, I've considered that myself many a time, but I've thought long and carefully about this. I don't ask you put your reservations aside, but do hear me out, won't you?"
Sorry, but why should we join you in obsessing about Darwin's rhetorical devices? Interesting as that may be, isn't the substance of his theory, and modern versions thereof, more important?
Teachers require students to dogmatically recite as "fact" things that go far beyond what is proven and true.
The rest is covered by a leap of faith.
You're obscuring the issue by bringing in the charge of feminism. There is a difference between mere "recognition" and being given proper credit. She did two years of work determining the structure of DNA by X-ray diffraction of DNA fibers.
Watson and Crick did not actually perform DNA experiments as they had each been assigned different projects. They based their theory on bits of information published in the literature, as well as Dr. Franklin's results, which they obtained without her knowledge from a report she had written for her research director at Cambridge.
You may have different ideas about ethical behavior among scientists, but many people think they stole her work.
**The desire for such a comforting possibility is a strong incentive to believe that it is true, regardless of the poor evidence for it.**
Did you read line 8 in my post (#264), where I mentioned the evolutionists 'know-it-all' position? You're enhancing my opinion of such.
Many have experienced the supernatural, infilling of the Holy Ghost. You have obviously never had that experience, and therefore 'expertly' declare that this life is it, no God, no life after death. No wonder you feel there is poor evidence, since by your own admission, you don't have eternal life dwelling in you.
Happy New Year!
See post #189.
"There is a systematic influnce [sic] at work in this: the differing densities of the liquids, and a gravitational field."
OK ... how about an earth-sized box of billions of different sized Legos covered with photovoltaic cells in earth's gravitational field? Expose it to sunlight. Add lightning ... Carl Sagan liked to do that ... shake it up for a few billion years and then see what "evolves"?
Maybe that'll do it.
Reply: OK. "The adventitious application of plausibility of a Weltanschauung of reality invokes a desideratum of theological presumptions." Nobody in Biblical times had the vaguest idea about photovoltaism. I am doubtful about talking snakes. Most of them don't even speak English properly.
"Irreducible specified complexity" is in the same class as "It's a wet bird that flies by night."
That is absurd. Sorry if that is how you see the world. Looking at it from a scientific perspective makes a lot more sense and you wouldn't sound so delutional. Know what I mean? Just consider it.
If you really want to freak them out, try Negative Information.
No, it doesn't go away EVEN IF YOU TAKE EVOLUTION OFF THE TABLE. As I quoted him previously, even the author of this article tacitly admits that the storing and transmition of this information, leaving aside it's origin, doesn't make sense per the crevo (mis)understanding of thermodynamics:
Finally, that natural selection seems even remotely plausible depends on the fact that while species are awaiting further improvements, their current complex structure is "locked in," and passed on perfectly through many generations. This phenomenon is observed, but inexplicable -- I don't see any reason why all living organisms do not constantly decay into simpler components -- as, in fact, they do as soon as they die.
Can you be the first to explain how the Second Law can contradict evolution without also -- and more drastically -- contradicting life as such?
How does the second law conflict with evolution without also conflicting with simple existence (and reproduction, development and growth) of living things?
In this case, it's quite easy to be certain that the creationist argument with respect to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, indeed, full of crap, and based on fallacious arguments and misrepresentions about what the SLoT actually does and does not say.
In fact, you would think with all of this certitude they wouldn't need to use insults such as "pig ignorant."
When the shoe fits, as it does in this case, there's nothing wrong with calling it what it is.
Creationists have been making this same grossly flawed claim for so many years, and have been corrected on it for so long, that there is absolutely no excuse for them to continue to make it.
If they don't want to appear grossly ignorant to anyone who actually knows the basics of the subject, then I invite them to stop saying and writing grossly ignorant things.
And there is as much chance of Ichy understanding that as there was of the Pharisees understanding the Lord's parables.
Did you read line 8 in my post (#264), where I mentioned the evolutionists 'know-it-all' position? You're enhancing my opinion of such.
How so? *You're* the one who declared himself "positively convinced" of something. *I'm* the one pointing out the value of healthy skepticism instead of being "positively convinced" of something that there are strong emotional incentives to believe regardless of the possibility of it being true or not.
Many have experienced the supernatural, infilling of the Holy Ghost. You have obviously never had that experience,
Actually, I have. OOPS! There you go, being a "know-it-all" again, and getting it wrong.
and therefore 'expertly' declare that this life is it, no God, no life after death.
Where did I "declare" that? Oh, right, I didn't. Perhaps you should be careful about your "know-it-all" presumptions.
No wonder you feel there is poor evidence, since by your own admission, you don't have eternal life dwelling in you.
Where do you hallucinate that I "admitted" that, Mr. Know-It-All?
Happy New Year!
And Happy New Year to you. Perhaps you might want to add a resolution about not jumping to conclusions to your list.
(chortling while beating my head against the keyboard)
Good one. :-)
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.