Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
OK, got it. You and Cman don't get along. I'll try to remember. LOL!
Beats me, I missed it all. What'd he say that got him blowed up?
Is that really a valid conclusion? Do we know whether that "research" was ever peer reviewed at all?
Then I don't understand your objections to scientists trying to find an explanation of the fossil record as the result of natural processes.
No need to change anythign regardign hte method- or replace it with anything- ID works fully within the parameters of the method
So do other theories that don't agree with ID, or the particular theories you've presented.
I believe that's referred to as "tempting fate".
Sorry I didn't get back sooner. You're quite welcome.
It's remarkable how the science-talkers here adopt (and preach) positions on the philosophy of science which are taken (often without them knowing it) from A.J. Ayer, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, or, in this case, David Hume. The FR science-talkers insist that their philosophical opinions on science are not philosophical formulations at all but science itself, and that's that. Of course there is no reason at all why we should agree with or even entertain the philosophy of Dewey, Hume, Ayer, Russell, Popper, etc.
Humpday drivel
"The Bible says: 'Correct a wise man and he will love you.' The scientist ought to be delighted when his theory, supported by a series of previous observations, appears to collapse in the light of his latest experiments. If he was wrong, then he has just escaped establishing a falsehood and been given a timely warning to turn in a new direction. But that is not how he feels. He is dejected and confused, and can only think of possible ways of explaining away the obstructive observation."
I'm very curious about this statement because time and time again I've only been able to find only ONE person to admit this indirectly, but still won't admit it directly.
Since the theory of evolution denies teleology, it therefore makes no sense for a person to say it "is intelligent design". It's merely a contradiction in terms to say so. No wonder people don't admit to it directly. Their inner logic seems to rest on interpreting 'accident' to mean 'design' or some such conflation. But the theory of evolution says what it says, despite the far-fetched efforts of some who interpret it metaphorically to mean the opposite of what it says.
And if this is the case, why is it so important to demand that children be told things like "God has no place in science class"?
To raise a generation of atheists, of course. Some Christians actually support this view, through some distorted philosophy of science and freedom of conscience or whatever. They will realize their mistake later, when everyone in the next generation grows up to be functionally atheists.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/genomicron/junk_dna_and_the_onion_test
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001810.html
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/discussing-junk-dna-with-adaptationist.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/junkdna.html
Lots of diverging opinions, but the “ultraconserved” regions make up a small percentage of the non-coding DNA.
And ther are living things that get along nicely without much non-coding DNA.
I don’t know. I saw a few of his posts but nothing jumped out at me as ban worthy.
Maybe the moderators hate me, and did it just for spite so I’d look bad after saying how clean the thread had been.:)
There were some threads about the temperature readings not being reliable. The placement of the temperature sensors at airports where they belong was initially correct, but as urban sprawl sprawled and the cities encroached on the open areas, they affected the readings as any city would; the temperatures recorded higher.
Some of the threads showed pictures of the placement of the probes with some being near parking lots and air conditioning units. When the stuff hit the fan, the NWS pulled the pictures it had of those sensors, but they were already on the web.
There are other threads but no good keywords to find them by.
15-Year-Old Byrnes Outsmarts NASA’s Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846653/posts
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.......
Well, I didn’t see anything that was offensive as per usual for crevo threads, unless ggg did.
Perhaps we can put in a disclaimer that the posts were pulled for some as yet unknown reason so that it’s obvious that this thread did not degenerate into the usual flamefest.
I think we just did.
How about this principle:
Humans share with mammals about a thousand genes for the sense of smell. But in humans, a third are inactive.
So humans have the gene responsible for the joy dogs experience while butt snuffing, and humans can give it a pass.
But hey, if the need arises, the Designer has foreseen it.
Then if we're going to stay on topic we need to look at how politics and/or ideology may be interfering with the objectivity of the research and conclusions of this theory.
I posted a couple of time to batman. He seemed to be on the creationist side,and although I was arguing with him, there was nothing offensive about his tone.
I wasn’t here when the purge happened but I have a theory. There used to be a poster called medved (not related to the writer, I hope). He frequently posted a graphic bat, which he called Spifford. He was banned and has been banned again under numerous names. His arguments and writing style are very distinctive.
So humans have the gene responsible for the joy dogs experience while butt snuffing, and humans can give it a pass.
But hey, if the need arises, the Designer has foreseen it.
So how does evolution explain it?
If humans don't need it, why are the genes there?
If they evoloved for a reason, why aren't they being used?
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.