Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution.
The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
So if I provide proof of a species which has evolved to where it cannot breed with others of the original species, you would agree a new "kind" has evolved?
I have no idea what that even means.
Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers.
Claiming that a person has no right to 'use the fruits' of methodological naturalism unless they also accept philosophical naturalism as a belief system is simply irrational. There is no rational basis for such a demand.
"I await a direct answer, not philosophical musings ending in personal attacks."
You have received a direct answer. That you refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not a direct answer. It is also not a personal attack to tell someone that they commit logical fallacies or that they lack the critical-thinking abilities to recognize their error when that is plainly the case.
Let me make it easier -- a yes or no question. Has there ever been an instance in science where a tangible result has come from some event not observed and described in the physical universe?
Yes or no. Simple. No need for rambling nor inventing phrases that do not apply to the question at hand.
All life violates the laws of chemistry and physics.
Only if you want to move on your next fallacy, the converse fallacy of accident.
So why bring Kinds up at all?
And for someone who spends all his time erecting strawmen, I find it singularly ironic you spend all your posts speaking of fallacies.
I would add that the Biblical kinds mean that plants and animals cannot interbreed (nor can they ever interbreed) beyond certain intelligently designed limits. If you wish to find out what those limits are, that is a job for science, and is currently being carried out by Creation Scientists in the field of Baraminology.
It doesn't matter. Just like Intelligent Design states, you don't need to define or even include God--you just need to describe the designer's actions. This is apparently enough for you to reject the hypothesis out of hand, just as it was for the steady-state universe adherents when the Big Bang was first proposed and the uniformitarianists when J Harlen Bretz first postulated how the Channeled Scablands were formed.
That is begging the question: Intelligent Design states you have an Intelligent Designer. Expansion and changes in scientific theories are part of science -- when have any included an Intelligent Designer or creator? Science may have puzzles before it -- CONSTANTLY. How do these puzzles somehow postulate an intelligent designer or the hand of a creator?
All life obeys God’s laws of chemistry and physics. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Please tell me how the bacteria living under my fingernail right now is violating the laws of physics and chemistry.
Wow, you really think ‘miracles’ happen in the strangest of places.
If there are such limits, how can you prove they are intelligently designed?
I know. It's one of the unfortunate consequences of a belief in philosophical naturalism. Logical fallacies, non sequiturs, lack of critical-thinking ability and many other problems follow from it.
Basically, what you don't understand is that certain terms cannot be true outside of a certain philosophical position because they are defined by it. If you replace the word 'scientific' with 'philosphically natural' you will see that it is true by definition, also known as a tautology.
Since philosophical naturalism does not recognize the term 'kind', it is impossible to define it such that it is a philosophically natural term. It is the converse argument of claiming that 'evolution' as a term must be defined biblically in order to be valid and is a non sequitur.
Deal with what I say and not what you fantasize I say, and we can have a discussion.
I was responding to your post.
"And for someone who spends all his time erecting strawmen, I find it singularly ironic you spend all your posts speaking of fallacies."
You think that pointing out fallacies in your thinking is a 'strawman'? As I have pointed out, multiple, serial fallacies are the very foundation of your belief-system. How can that be a 'strawman'? LOL!
Bretz produced evidence to support his contention.
Creationists have yet to do so. They expect their religious beliefs to be accepted uncritically.
Well yes, science is cumulative, and the theories about specific historical events have to be adjusted to fit new evidence. So far the adjustments haven’t required believing the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it, or that it is 6000 years old.
And yes, scientists tried to fit geological findings into a Biblical framework until about 1830, at which point most admitted that a different interpretation was required.
No, it just means your post didn't make any sense.
I was responding to your post.
That doesn't answer the underlying question -- in responding to my post, you reinforce the idea of kinds.
You think that pointing out fallacies in your thinking is a 'strawman'? As I have pointed out, multiple, serial fallacies are the very foundation of your belief-system. How can that be a 'strawman'? LOL!
Ducking and weaving and positing a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I ask is not "pointing out fallacies" -- it is merely building strawmen and then lighting them.
My question (still unanswered) was very simple -- it didn't need pph after pph of philosophical meanderings. I am sure you enjoyed posting them but they are just evading the issue.
What you mean is that they don't make sense to you. But you don't have the ability to recognize the logical fallacies, non sequiturs and critical-thinking errors that form the foundation of your belief-system. I have pointed them out to you in broad daylight and you still cannot understand. I'm not being mean when I say that is a consequence of believing in philosophical naturalism. It really is.
I know first-hand because I used to believe it too and didn't understand either. But if I could get out, so can you. It's up to you whether you want to break free from that mindset or not.
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.