Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
No one who actually believed the Biblical creation story would be willing, day after day, to bring shame and discredit to his fellow believers.
If I am wrong about this, then someone on his side should privately encourage him to at least use the FR spell checker.
Nope- I’m saying that the evidneces evos present are based on methods that are notoriously unreliable, and even when dates are accepted, something will come along challenging those dates, and the dates are simply adjusted to meet the new evidences which as you must conceed, make the dating system a bit suspect as to the actual reliability.
I am alos saying that the ‘evidences’ for eovlution are mere bones, fragments, and incomplete in many cases, and supposedly are seperated by millions of years, and that all the thousands of necessary changes taking place that supposedly took place are absent from the fossil record, yet we’re told that specimens that are seperated by millions of years are supposedly related, and this is what we’re presented as evidence that evolution was taking place. When it’s pointed out that there are problems with the direct links between species, it’s simply brushed aside by claiming that the species in question was soem far off relative on a wayward branch on the tree of the knowlkedge of good and evil- woops- I mean the tree of life.
Vestigial organs turning out not to be useless after all, and serving specific species specific functions, and not being the ‘remains of digits and limbs’ after all, junk DNA turning out not to be junk after all, etc etc etc-
You can present as much ‘evidence’ as you like, but the fact of the matter is that not all the evidences presented are solid factual evidences, and don’t have th3 nice clean linear patterns that wew’re led to beleive they do by highly subjective and opinionated proponents.
The line of supposed reptile to mammals that we’re told is ‘well established’ isn’t so ‘well established’ after all. It might upset you to think people would have different opinions about things, and infact be able to back their differing opinions up with evidences they feel support their position, but the fact is that not everyone buys into what we’re being handed. We aren’t rejecting based on nothign but a religious beleif, and infact, we don’t have to thanks to the coutnless coutner scientific evidecnes, and the continued new discoveries, and explorations in the realm of design that available to us.
LOOOOOOOOOL- oh the shame, how shall I ever face anyone ever again? Oh the pain of the shame-
Sorry- but I just aint as anal as you apparently are about taking the time to dissect my spelling errors- School ended long ago- but I’ll tell ya what- if this site ever decides to officially publish comments in scientific journals, I might concider caring an iota and perhaps slowing down my thinkiong and typoing just a wee bnit- but I probably won’t- because it’s fiun to watch people liek you obsess about how spelling is is supposed to equate with intelligence lol.
You little dig at spelling might work over on DC, and might garner you some back slapping support- but quite frankly, it’s a childish insult to make- but you ga right ahead and keep it going- it’s amusing.
Nope-
There are some that would answere "Yep-". Those are the anti-science ones I was describing.
I’m thinkiong your thinkiong is just fine. I just don’t think you are what you claim to be.
Lack of good grammar and spelling are viewed as a sign of illiteracy.
He did sort of up the level of errors when you pointed it out!
But the constant drumbeat of vacuous talking points becomes boring after a while. The evolution critics had an opportunity at the Dover trial to put forward their best case, and they had none.
Behe had an opportunity in his latest book to develop a cogent critique of evolution, but he had no case. I find it amusing that someone who can't spell and is too lazy to use a spell checker will claim to be smarter than the evolution critics who have actually earned legitimate PhDs and achieved tenure.
You never attempted to prove your claims.
ECO is correct that I've been accused of those things and yet no one has provided any evidence to back that up.
I am not "anti-science", or a "science-denier", and "science-hater". I have my degree in science and had planned on that since grade school. Science is a wonderful TOOL to be used for the betterment of mankind, but just because one doesn't blindly toe the party line on certain issues doesn't make one a science hater.
Do you agree with every single pronouncement uttered by the scientific community? What about areas where the scientific community is divided? Should we declare you a science hater simply because you might not take the officially decreed position?
What I *hate* is the abuse of science. The ridicule and demeaning of people because they dare to question the conclusions drawn on a certain subject; calling them *cretards* and *IDiots* as so frequently happens over at DC and used to happen here. I *hate* the slurs against the intelligence of those who do not agree simply for that reason alone. I *hate* the misuse of science as a political tool to try to sway people's party affiliations because of their certain views on one theory in one branch of science.
Using the same procedure that someone who believes that the universe is more than 6,000 years old.
What a stupid question. That proves nothing.
So what's wrong with that? Why is the explanation in the Physics book any better?
Newton believed that *God did it* and it never stopped him from pursuing knowledge. Your argument that believing God did it would hamper learning holds no water and is a fabrication used just to discredit any who hold to God being the ultimate source of everything.
Is that supposed to be an answer to his questions: What is the truth about the evolution of just an eye coldwater? Please, give us the unconditionally true truth of the matter? We ‘Truth-Haters” would like to know what the real truth about a small organ like the eye’s evolution took place. How long did everything flounder in useless suspension until everythign was mysteriously moved into place and ready for business?
That's one of the best evasive answers I've ever seen.
But you actually need to have some results before demanding access to high school (and earlier) school rooms.
If someone actually found something irreducibly complex then IDers might have a leg to stand on. We're waiting...and no finding something we don't understand is not the same as finding something that we do understand and is irreducibly complex.
The point is that, historically, something explained with 'supernatural' explanations was/is a good place to put naturalistic scientific research looking for actual explanations. Explaining something with 'supernatural' reasoning isn't explaining anything, is untestable and hence unscientific.
“But you actually need to have some results before demanding access to high school (and earlier) school rooms.”
why? i have rights too. in the name of Truth you are encouraging ignorance of something that has had great impact upon the world. freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. the ability to worship freely is why this country was created.
Which has nothing to do with the posts to which you are responding.
If you need results, then why is evolution permitted when it cannot demonstrate speciation. Simply deducing it because natural variation is observed is not scientific evidence.
For all the efforts man has made for thousands of years in manipulating genetics, through selective breeding or, more recently through actual DNA manipulation, I have yet to see any evidence of the kind of speciation that evolutionists claim happened *naturally*, through random mutations and selective pressure.
Why do they expect us to believe something can happen by accident that scientists can't make happen on purpose?
>> If someone actually found something irreducibly complex then IDers might have a leg to stand on.
The thing is, all evolutionists have to do is make up a just-so story and *poof* the irreducible complexity goes away.
The fact is, people *trust* evolution to the point that they will accept any story that supports it without any corroborating evidence, yet ID gets distrusted to the point that people won’t accept anything but a direct face to face testimony from the designer.
Evolution deals on the level of philosophy. It is not science to say that “every living thing evolved to its current state from nonliving matter”. It is a historical-philosophical one. Scientists do not use evolution as a theory to test, but as a philosophical framework to interpret data and guide research.
>> The point is that, historically, something explained with ‘supernatural’ explanations was/is a good place to put naturalistic scientific research looking for actual explanations.
So you exclude supernatural explanations because natural ones work for lightning and solar system mechanics? So in the end, you only have the most plausible natural explanation. In short, a believable lie.
>> Explaining something with ‘supernatural’ reasoning isn’t explaining anything, is untestable and hence unscientific.
‘Supernatural’ reasoning depends on what century you’re from. The Big Bang is a great example. The universe appearing suddenly into existence and not being infinite and constant was considered supernatural for a long time, until the evidence was overwhelming. Scientists still don’t postulate God as the cause of the Big Bang. I’d imagine that ID will ultimately end up with a set of artificially originated living populations arriving at different points in history on Earth for inexplicable reasons.
What is the truth about the evolution of just an eye coldwater? Please, give us the unconditionally true truth of the matter? We ‘Truth-Haters” would like to know what the real truth about a small organ like the eye’s evolution took place. How long did everything flounder in useless suspension until everythign was mysteriously moved into place and ready for business?
"That's one of the best evasive answers I've ever seen."
How else should an obvious straw man be answered?
There are enough organisms with varying degrees of 'advancement', from simple light sensing patches of skin to eyes such as the octopuses, to know that there was no 'floundering in useless suspension until everything was mysteriously moved into place and ready for business' as put forward by Cottshop. The eye is one of the best examples of the development of complex systems from simple beginnings through incremental changes. Given the range of abilities in extant and extinct organisms' eyes, a claim that it had to go through a number of useless stages before being functional is a pretty brazen construction of a straw man.
His demand for, as he puts it '...the unconditionally true truth of the matter', is an attempt to place an impossible condition in the way of any current explanation for the evolution of the eye since he knows that science does not deal with absolute 'truth' but deals rather with level of confidence which is changeable depending on improved data collection, advanced examination technology, and more accurate analysis methods.
He designed his question to be unanswerable.
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.