Skip to comments.
Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Human Events ^
| Jan 17, 2006
| Barney Brenner
Posted on 01/16/2006 8:32:58 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 741-759 next last
To: moog
You see, they are related as they are made by the same creator. Of course there are similarities in the species because of this. In any case....:) I suspect that a little dust will be raised by this evening. :))
But, I'd still Kill Flipper for a tuna sandwich...love those things, especially if they are toasted.....
Tom
421
posted on
01/17/2006 6:31:21 AM PST
by
tgambill
(I would like to comment.....)
To: King Prout
naw, just the facts.......no evolution. Evolution is mans way of boxing Gods's creation so that he (man) can understand it in his four dimentional thinking. It makes him feel safe. My belief in this, actually cannot be a misconception as any taxonomic study won't prove a thing. He will show just animals that look similar over a period of time that ended up as they are now. The reason that they are similar is that they were created by the same creator, not because they evolved. Species do change due to certain mutations...but it is not the order of things. If so, where are the six toed Humans from the stone age....:))
422
posted on
01/17/2006 6:37:03 AM PST
by
tgambill
(I would like to comment.....)
To: js1138
I have been on enough to know that you do that.
I do believe in ID, but I don't believe we "descend" so to speak. While that may seem so in our society today, I think that God wants us to PROGRESS rather than REGRESS.
But that's just my progressive opinion.
They actually had a guy come out once and teach creation at our high school years ago--a minister.
423
posted on
01/17/2006 6:38:28 AM PST
by
moog
To: tgambill
You see, they are related as they are made by the same creator. Of course there are similarities in the species because of this. In any case....:) I suspect that a little dust will be raised by this evening. :))
I met taxonomically, but I can't remember for sure. I'll check back this evening to see what else is new. Enjoy your tuna--just don't watch that one Simpson's episode about the dolphins.
424
posted on
01/17/2006 6:40:33 AM PST
by
moog
To: connectthedots
the fact that evolutionists refuse to address thye origins of life is a de facto admission that life is not a result of random chance.That is an astoundingly bad leap of logic.
Some evolutionists have origin of life ideas just as some have firm beliefs in an afterlife. It doesn't make either of those concepts which are unrelated to evolution more or less true.
To: moog
So did you descend from your ancestors or progress? You are using words outside of their intended meaning. Descent refers to lineage, not direction or value.
426
posted on
01/17/2006 6:42:10 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
So did you descend from your ancestors or progress? You are using words outside of their intended meaning. Descent refers to lineage, not direction or value.
I'm progressing towards the descent of my ancestors--hehe. Thanks for taking the bait. Just wanted to see if we were all awake. As you noticed, I use words often in double meanings--known as puns (and dumb ones at that):).
Sorry about that. I'm going to watch you guys duke it out.
427
posted on
01/17/2006 6:47:14 AM PST
by
moog
To: js1138
Evolution is forensic science. I'm not sure that's an appropriate description, as forensic is defined as "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems."
If I'm not mistaken, what you're really saying is that evolution attempts to explain how things got to be the way they are. That's a reasonable description, although I suspect that you're not actually stating the majority opinion on that, because you'd be faced with the same problems of testability and predictability that supposedly face an ID hypothesis.
Your glow-in-the dark pigs are and interesting challenge, but that is all.
They're an interesting test of "evolution as forensic science." We already have "the best available explanation," in that we already know the real answer. The test for your "forensic science" is to see whether or not it can come up with the real answer on its own. And if it cannot ... well, that does raises a rather interesting scientific problem, doesn't it?
Forensic science works with probabilities and best available explanations. It does this all the time.
And in the case of glow-in-the-dark pigs, what do your forensic probabilities tell you about the "best available explanations?" Can your forensic science tolerate a hypothesis that these pigs were caused by intelligent agents?
Why not exercise your brain on something interesting? Tell me how a forensic science would go about solving puzzles for which we do not yet have a certain answer?
Hmmmm..... Well, I'd say that testing the ability of your forensic science to get the right answer in this case is an interesting exercise.
428
posted on
01/17/2006 6:48:19 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: Tailgunner Joe
Words like "intelligence," "design," "simple," "complex," etc. are notably absent from the vocabulary of dogmatic Darwinists. While science makes use of all these things, Darwinists are loath to define them or uise them in their vocabulary. When it is pointed out how they embrace a biological history from simple to complex organisms, which in itself is reasonable, some of their disciples shun such language, as if science is incapable of even expressing the idea of simple or complex.
What is more, science by nature entails reasonable conjecture. It is hardly unreasonable to conjecture that, where there is organized matter, there may be a designer. Indeed, every instance of organized matter may be reasonably construed as evidence of intelligent design.
A good many of Darwins disciples loudly proclaim themselves as sole arbiters of what consitutes science, invoking words such as "hypotheses," "falsifiability," "scientific method" all the while disavowing the overarching principle(s) they themselves have adopted as observers, as if science can somehow entirely divest itself of subjectivity, general principles, and philosophy.
Many of them furthermore assert that words such as "faith" and "belief" must only be applied to religion, when in fact none of them have direct knowledge of evolution, but have only reasonable conjecture and inference subjectively drawn from a static record. No one has directly observed a transition from ape to human. One may only subjectively infer as much.
But what are they afraid of? A theocracy? That "real science" will somehow be damaged? I don't think so.
To: wallcrawlr
And there at the core of it all lies the seething ******.
Thats why no matter how many times 'the evidence' must be re calibrated the conclusion remains the same.
430
posted on
01/17/2006 6:51:42 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Words like "intelligence," "design," "simple," "complex," etc. are notably absent from the vocabulary
Heck, they're absent from most people's vocab--especially mine.
431
posted on
01/17/2006 6:51:50 AM PST
by
moog
To: moog
Yours is a most reasonable request. Thanks for the advice.
432
posted on
01/17/2006 7:04:29 AM PST
by
bvw
To: Fester Chugabrew
Only Karl Popper's "falsi-fallity" definition of science is allowed! Forgotten is Lord Kelvin's admonishment to "have numbers". The anti-Scientific Design crowd has no numbers of probabilities, chemical rates of reaction, etc.
I use the proper term "Scientific Design", rather than the less explanatory "Intelligent Design". For not only is the Universe's design obviously intelligent -- it is obviously condusive to and even welcoming of "Science".
433
posted on
01/17/2006 7:09:52 AM PST
by
bvw
To: Tailgunner Joe
But even a casual perusal of ID demonstrates there is no dependence on Genesis for any of its arguments Sorry, Barney boy, your buds got busted.
434
posted on
01/17/2006 7:12:59 AM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: Hodar
Speaking on behalf of the Christian Church of Organized Matter I can say without reservation that you are correct in presenting the Law of Chaos as currently inoperative on this planet.
To: King Prout
galaxies crashing into one another is evidence of an INTELLIGENT designer? Well, summer movies with back-to-back explosions were presumably designed by (somewhat) intelligent writers and directors.
436
posted on
01/17/2006 7:22:52 AM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
The Conspiracy That Cares |
|
|
Corrupting the World's Youth Since 1859 |
|
|
January 17, 2006 |
The CrevoSci Archive |
Since June 25, 1999 |
|
Box Scores
2006 Threads to date: |
86 |
2006 Daily Average: |
5.06 |
Cataloged Threads |
3088 |
Daily Average: |
1.29 |
Participants: |
978 |
Percent Banned: |
11% |
|
|
CrevoSci Threads for the Past Week
- 2006-01-16 Great Debate on Science and the Bible: Part 1
- 2006-01-16 I'm a great believer in doubt. At least I think I am. (Creationism vs. Evolution)
- 2006-01-16 Scientists journey towards centre of the Earth to seek out origins of life
- 2006-01-16 Stone Age Footwork: Ancient Human Prints Turn Up Down Under
- 2006-01-16 The 'Indigo Children' have arrived
- 2006-01-16 Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?
- 2006-01-15 Bird flu mutation sparks concern Genetic tweak makes virus favour human nose and throat.
- 2006-01-15 WHAT'S INFECTING SCIENCE? (book review: Tom Bethell's 'The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science')
- 2006-01-15 Why frogs croak
- 2006-01-14 Born or Bred?: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
- 2006-01-14 Giant Tunnel Found In Distant Galaxy
- 2006-01-14 Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from Creationists [El Tejon litigation]
- 2006-01-14 Why Your Brain Has Gray Matter, and Why You Should Use It (Darwinian Evolution's Foolishness)
- 2006-01-13 Beware how you meddle with climate change
- 2006-01-13 Dawkins is wrong about God
- 2006-01-13 Early humans faced death from the skies
- 2006-01-13 Intelligent Design: Regarding Science and Religion
- 2006-01-13 Is dark energy changing?
- 2006-01-13 Rockefeller researchers discover a biological clock within a clock
- 2006-01-13 The Religion of Science (Evolution as Faith!)
- 2006-01-12 California High School Sued for Teaching 'Intelligent Design'
- 2006-01-12 Darwin home up for heritage site [UN's World Heritage program]
- 2006-01-12 Making a case for ID and evolution in classrooms (Florida to censor science textbooks)
- 2006-01-12 Researcher: Early Man Was Hunted by Birds
- 2006-01-12 Supersymmetry and Parallel Dimensions [profile of Harvard physicist Lisa Randall]
- 2006-01-11 Designing We Shall Go. 'God is Dead': Nietsche ('Nietzsche is Dead': God)
- 2006-01-11 Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students' minds?
- 2006-01-11 Is Evolution Arkansas's 'Hidden' Curriculum
- 2006-01-11 Neaderthals At It Again
- 2006-01-11 Out of The Corner ('Materialism strictly applied in such cases is a science stopper')
- 2006-01-11 The Designs of Science
On this Date in CrevoSci History
- 2005-01-17 Gene Arrangement Makes Some Europeans More Fertile
- 2003-01-17 Bird wings can help keep birds down, not up (BREAKING)
- 2003-01-17 Chicks Offer Insight Into Origin of Flight
- 2003-01-17 Glacial melt turns up treasure
- 2003-01-17 New Study Suggests Missing Link That Explains How Dinosaurs Learned To Fly
- 2002-01-17 Gravity's quantum leaps detected
- 2001-01-17 Evolution vs Creation - 'The Living Word Of God' (Thread 2)
- 2001-01-17 Evolution vs Creation - 'The Living Word Of God' (Thread 3)
- 2000-01-17 In Defense of Evolution
Deleted, Locked, or Pulled Threads
- 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say [Locked]
- 2004-04-27 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap! [Pulled]
- 2003-10-29 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) [Pulled]
- 2003-10-27 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution [Pulled]
- 2003-10-23 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder [Pulled]
- 2003-10-21 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch [Pulled]
- 2003-09-23 Solar System Formation Questions [Pulled]
- 2003-09-17 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads [Pulled]
- 2003-07-18 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism] [Pulled]
- 2003-07-02 Unlocking the Mystery of 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [Pulled]
- 2003-06-26 Darwin Faces a New Rival [Pulled]
- 2003-06-06 Amazing Creatures [Pulled]
- 2002-09-14 Geological Theory Explains Origin of Ocean, Continents [Pulled]
- 2002-09-13 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old [Pulled]
- 2002-04-13 To Creationists: Is There a Global Conspiracy to Promote Evolution? [Pulled]
- 2002-04-10 (Creationists) CRSC Correction [Pulled]
- 2002-04-04 Evolution: What is it? (long article) [Locked]
- 2002-03-22 Evolution is designed for science classes [Pulled]
- 2002-03-05 Life found 'on margin of existence' [Pulled]
- 2001-11-10 Alabama to continue biology textbook warning sticker [Pulled]
- 2001-11-06 Warming makes mosquito evolve, University of Oregon scientists find [Pulled]
- 2001-09-18 CHEERED BY BIGOTS, SCIENTIFIC INDIA TAKES 'GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS' [Pulled]
- 2001-08-29 How Not to Defend Evolution [Deleted]
- 2001-08-28 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision] [Deleted]
- 2001-08-27 Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang [Deleted]
- 2001-08-26 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I] [Deleted]
- 2001-08-24 Satellites Search for Noahs Ark [Deleted]
- 2001-07-19 The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity [Deleted]
- 2001-07-19 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part I [Deleted]
- 2001-07-19 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part II [Deleted]
- 2001-07-19 Evolution is Religion Not Science [Deleted]
- 2001-07-07 Evolution Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks [Deleted]
- 2001-03-31 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator [No Such File]
- 2001-01-13 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design [Deleted]
- 2000-11-15 Evolutionism Receives Another Hard Blow [Deleted]
- 2000-10-10 Another Lost Generation? [Deleted]
- 2000-10-02 God and the Academy [Deleted]
- 2000-09-18 The World of Design [Deleted]
- 2000-08-30 Evil-Ution [Deleted]
- 1999-11-14 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective) [No Such File]
|
|
437
posted on
01/17/2006 7:28:08 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: TheCrusader
This has been swatted down so many times that I'm surprised that even the most stalwart creationists still try to advance it.
438
posted on
01/17/2006 7:33:29 AM PST
by
jayef
To: Oztrich Boy
One thing we know for sure about Intelligent Design. It casues people to lie.
To: tallhappy
Uhhh, yeah really. There are certain discoveries that any biologist could describe to you that, if found, could invalidate the theory or would at least require it to be reworked. So far, everything fits.
440
posted on
01/17/2006 7:36:59 AM PST
by
jayef
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 741-759 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