Posted on 08/17/2006 11:04:51 AM PDT by publius1
They don't say that. The evidence provides an overwhelming body of evidence to support TToE. No offense, but the fact you don't UNDERSTAND it doesn't invalidate it.
As a Conservative I am not going to believe everything that is shoved down my throat.
Like that awful "physics." And "chemistry." And don't get me started on those "astronomers" and the crap they try to shove down everyone's throat. I mean, if they can't explain EXACTLY how the Universe started, how can they tell us stars are billions of miles away? You are right -- having this kind of nonsense shoved down our throats should not be tolerated! ;)
That is hardly a dark age belief. Where are all those Transitional Species???
Have you seen Coyoteman's chart? (In fact I know you have -- I have seen you on other threads).
My friend, are you like that fish Dory in "Finding Nemo"? You know, you ask a question on a thread, it gets answered completely, so you leave the thread only to ask the same question again on the new thread.
I mean this seriously -- do you have a memory problem? We can get help for you.
Actually she shreaded your Archaeopteryx so called reptile bird that came after bird fossils. Again you guys spin and twist every fossil to try to make it into something it isn't. If anything it is nothing more than an extinct species.
If evolution was fact there would be millions and millions of species from ameoba to man and that is not the case. Every so called example has serious questions.
I do admire your faith in your religion though. You guys act like everyone has to believe in what you believe in or it is heresy to the Sanhedrin of Evolution. Those Saintly Scientists have been wrong far more they have been right and this is another example of Junk Science.
Ann knocked Humpty Darwin off the Wall.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Beautiful summary BTW -- I will be sending people to it when they need a quick refresher. If I cut and paste it without attribution, I hope you'll understand.
On these threads the debate is science vs. religion.
The debates over the interpretation of scientific evidence take place in technical journals and scientific conferences, not on FR.
I have seen Coyotes chart and even watched Disney's movie, they are both full of fakes and frauds. Pictures are not evidence. But hey if you want to believe it have at it, just don't expect the more cynical to swallow that Junk anymore.
I love your if you don't understand our religion than you have no opinion of validity argument. Worked really well with the femienvyists.
Ann Knocked Humpty Darwin off the Wall and All the Kings Scientists can't put him together again.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Have you even read her book? Ann Rox!!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Museums.
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
Neither Evolution, ID, nor Creationism is completely falsifiable. However, contrary to evo claims, both ID and Creation Science have models that do make individual predictions, which can be confirmed or falsified. Just like evolution though, the failure of one prediction, does not invalidate the theory.
Creation Theory - Predictive model
Intelligent Design - Predictive Model
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
It can be said that the theory of evolution has been modified with "punctuated equilibrium", "convergent evolution", etc. Like evolution, neither ID nor Creation claims to have a complete understanding of everything that happened. But I would say that all three are generally complete and not tentative.
"C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena? "
Only in the field of evolution does "naturalistic" become part of the definition of science. There are many fields of science in which "design" plays a part. Forensic sciences and geology frequently look to see if something was caused by man or was caused by other forces. So to say that in the field of life sciences, a designer cannot be considered a primary cause, is ridiculous. It's a weak attempt by evo's to narrow the scope of science until no other explanation that evolution exists, because all others have been defined away. We now have designer corn. But under your definition of science, anyone looking at a vegetable would be forced to conclude that it arose strictly from happenstance because no other explanation is defined as "science", even thouth genetic modifications are clearly a science.
"D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?"
Oh, like evolution makes the least assumptions possible!!!!
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
Evolution has made many many false predictions. For example evolutionists taught us that there were something on the order of 169 vestigal organs in the human body, including the tonsils, the appendix and the tailbone. Now not one is believed to be vestigal. Evolution taught us that much of DNA is "junk DNA". But we now are discovering function to that "junk DNA".
ID and Creation do make predictions, some prove correct. And some prove false. Just like evolution.
"F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution? "
I've already pointed out that evolution has made many false predictions. It's not "very accurate". But each time new observations are made, evolution restates itself and incorporates the new observations post humously as "predictive". Evolution didn't predict "punctuated equilibrium", but once the fossil record did not show a continous progression like evolution predicted, the theory was modified to fit the observations. And now it's claimed that evolution predicts punctuated equilibrium, when it really did not such thing.
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?
There are. Answers in Genesis posts article after article demonstrating evidence. A biased mind however, can reject those evidences. As one evolutionist on FR told me, we must have evolved because we are here. Thus when you aren't willing to consider any other possibility, evolution becomes the most likely.
Please provide proof that there is a single fake and/or fraud on Coyoteman's chart. Please provide subsantiation. "'Cause I think so" isn't generally accepted as argumentation nor proof.
I love your if you don't understand our religion than you have no opinion of validity argument. Worked really well with the femienvyists.
That statement makes no sense.
Ann Knocked Humpty Darwin off the Wall and All the Kings Scientists can't put him together again.
Ann played to the crowd. It seems it worked.
Cheers.
Don't forget she should have to go to AA or some dry-out clinic.
As I said earlier (post 91) to b_sharp, anyone can write a pack of lies. It's easy to do, and requires little thought. It's even easier if you just copy the nonsense that appears on creationist websites. Or if you do as Ann did, and let creationists feed you their long-rebutted foolishness. But putting together the material to counter that stuff takes time, and effort. And knowledge of the subject matter. Be patient.
"On these threads the debate is science vs. religion."
I hope you really don't mean that. As you probably already know many of the great men of science such as Galileo, Newton, Descartes were also great men of faith. Most of the people on this thread who talk about Creationism or ID as science are really being quite silly. It bothers me, as a conservative, and as a person of faith that somehow I have to choose between faith and science. I choose to support both. It is most upsetting that some people take pleasure in suggesting that 77% of Republicans don't believe in evolution. More than upsetting it is shameful and I refuse to believe it is a legitimate survey.
See my post 128, it deals with this.
If you are right, I am very afraid of the damage our party is doing to the next generation of Americans.
You can relax. Because the truth is, that the evolution/ID/Creation debate really doesn't impact much practical science.
Had darwin never been born, we'd still have developed cell phones and nukes, and traveled to the moon. We'd still have explored the microscopic world and discovered DNA, because we'd still be asking questions about how God designed and constructed us. We'd still catalogie species based on similiarities and eventually DNA.
About the only difference is that more people would still have their tonsils, those unfortunate few who had their tailbones removed by medical doctors believing in evolution would never know the hell that they missed, and research into DNA would probably be more complete becaused the "junk DNA" wouldn't have been so easily dismissed.
Contrary to the cries of the evolutionary faithful, Creationists wouldn't turn back the clock to the dark ages, in fact, Creationists fathered many of the scientific fields.
Just because 77% of republicans reject evolution, don't assume they are all scientifically illiterate, just because they don't agree with you.
And I posted in this thread a link to another thread where the links to the polls can be found. There are multiple polls. And while Republicans are more likely to reject evolution than rats, a majority of both parties reject evolution. So the evolutionist cry that creationists are going to somehow hurt the party, is just evo fearmongering.
First of all, let's try not to follow this template. (Yeah, right!)
OK, now here's one decent-sized sample of the thing that supposedly doesn't exist. Make us all proud!
Not quite right. If we were to find a modern horse, human or dog fossil from millions of years ago, it TToE would be falsified (as I believe I already pointed out). Creationism and ID, OTOH, are not falsifiable, since the Supreme Intelligence can create whatever conditions it wants "on the fly."
It can be said that the theory of evolution has been modified with "punctuated equilibrium", "convergent evolution", etc. Like evolution, neither ID nor Creation claims to have a complete understanding of everything that happened. But I would say that all three are generally complete and not tentative.
You my say so, but you would be wrong. The picture changes and is emerging all the time. In the last few months some amazing changes to TToE have emerged.
Again, CR/ID don't change, since THEY CAN'T. At their core is an Intelligent Designer or Supreme Being that is by definition omniscient and thus unchangeable.
Only in the field of evolution does "naturalistic" become part of the definition of science. There are many fields of science in which "design" plays a part. Forensic sciences and geology frequently look to see if something was caused by man or was caused by other forces.
"Forensic science" is applied science. Just because something has the word "science" in it doesn't make it a pure science pursuit. That is why introducing the term "Creation Science" is so amusing -- "oh! It has the word 'science' in it! That must mean it is Science!"
So to say that in the field of life sciences, a designer cannot be considered a primary cause, is ridiculous. It's a weak attempt by evo's to narrow the scope of science until no other explanation that evolution exists, because all others have been defined away.
In an applied science, human intervention is always possible. Your analogy fails as specious at best.
We now have designer corn. But under your definition of science, anyone looking at a vegetable would be forced to conclude that it arose strictly from happenstance because no other explanation is defined as "science", even thouth genetic modifications are clearly a science.
No, any biologist worth his salt would say "a HUMAN introduced these changes because of..."
That is NOT the same as an omniscient designer.
Oh, like evolution makes the least assumptions possible!!!!
Admittedly, CR/ID makes exactly one assumption. But it uses the same assumption for every datum it encounters: the Designer did this. But that is more of an assertion than an assumption. TToE tries to minimize assumptions to draw the straightest line between the data available.
Evolution has made many many false predictions. For example evolutionists taught us that there were something on the order of 169 vestigal organs in the human body, including the tonsils, the appendix and the tailbone. Now not one is believed to be vestigal. Evolution taught us that much of DNA is "junk DNA". But we now are discovering function to that "junk DNA".
So has every science. But it is understanding of TToE that provided the impetus for exposing the Genome. Had CR/ID held sway, today we would be looking at DNA saying "dunno -- must be the Designer. Looks too complicated to me."
TToE has been able to explain a lot of data. And of course, it has been able to explain and sometimes predict (to some degree) micro-evolution we see right under our very eyes. I ID and Creation do make predictions, some prove correct. And some prove false. Just like evolution.
Please provide evidence if a single ID or Creartion prediction proven correct and tied in to The Designer.
I've already pointed out that evolution has made many false predictions. It's not "very accurate". But each time new observations are made, evolution restates itself and incorporates the new observations post humously as "predictive". Evolution didn't predict "punctuated equilibrium", but once the fossil record did not show a continous progression like evolution predicted, the theory was modified to fit the observations. And now it's claimed that evolution predicts punctuated equilibrium, when it really did not such thing.
So, when new dta are available and science adjusts to that, it somehow "proves" it was bad to begin with? You really need to understand the scientific process better. Any scentifi pursuit that DIDN'T change based on new data would be less than useless. Now, what changes have been made in the CR/ID model? NOne, since the only change that COULD be made would be as a result of understanding The Designer.
Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it? There are. Answers in Genesis posts article after article demonstrating evidence. A biased mind however, can reject those evidences. As one evolutionist on FR told me, we must have evolved because we are here. Thus when you aren't willing to consider any other possibility, evolution becomes the most likely.
Again, there is no other SCIENTIFIC possibility at this time. There is no Genuine Evidence of a Designer. It (or He) didn't stamp "Made in Heaven" on the million year old bones to make it clear.
We see transitional fossils. We see micro-evolution in front of our eyes. There is no EVIDENCE of a Designer stepping in. But we do see EVIDENCE of physical changes forced by the environment at the DNA level.
It's the same old censorship that you see from all the Lib arguments. If you don't agree with the secular dogma your not to be listened to. Darwin did not hold up to the evidence and is falling like a house of cards.
Her all fossils being in the same strata pretty much destroyed the 40 million year evolution. Now the scientists say there was basically a big bang evolution. They have twisted themselves like pretzels.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I hope you really don't mean that. As you probably already know many of the great men of science such as Galileo, Newton, Descartes were also great men of faith.
You are correct, but they are not on these threads. On these threads, scientists are continually called "atheists" or "evol doers" or "evilutionists" or some such, if not compared with Hitler and his nazis, and many warm prognostications are made for our afterlives. I think Galileo, Newton, and Descartes would have been treated as badly.
Most of the people on this thread who talk about Creationism or ID as science are really being quite silly. It bothers me, as a conservative, and as a person of faith that somehow I have to choose between faith and science. I choose to support both.
Agreed on both points.
It is most upsetting that some people take pleasure in suggesting that 77% of Republicans don't believe in evolution. More than upsetting it is shameful and I refuse to believe it is a legitimate survey.
I don't know the accuracy of the poll, but I would hate for the Republican party to be associated with Luddites and seen as anti-science.
And folks would be complaining about Wallacism.
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.