This starts slow but gets interesting. It really puts scientific consensus in perspective. It takes a few jabs at other orthodoxies, but I like that. There should be no orthodoxies in science. Science shouldn't be treated like a religion, and in science there should be no anointed.
1 posted on
11/30/2009 5:12:11 PM PST by
Delacon
To: pissant; CedarDave; 2ndDivisionVet; steelyourfaith; Sub-Driver; xcamel; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...
2 posted on
11/30/2009 5:13:22 PM PST by
Delacon
("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
To: SunkenCiv; blam
This is one is very fascinating.
To: Delacon
It should have all been public in the first place, it was public money.
I know it is the Queen’s English but the title for this defender of the hoax cracked me up, Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
5 posted on
11/30/2009 5:42:50 PM PST by
tiki
(True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
To: Delacon
The alert reader will immediately realize that, window dressing aside, the “intelligent being” must exist outside the normal confines of physical law...Yeah, well, all intelligence exists outside the normal confines of physical law. If you disallow the possibility of intelligence existing outside the normal confines of physical law, then you disallow the possibility of your own mind, and of course that would be a silly thing to do.
Apart from this, the article is right on target.
6 posted on
11/30/2009 5:46:01 PM PST by
Yardstick
To: Delacon
Another example of rumor and hype turning into fact is the ole Bermuda Triangle fraud. Started with one article, and mushroomed into a belief system -
7 posted on
11/30/2009 5:49:30 PM PST by
stubernx98
(cranky, but reasonable)
To: Delacon
All this stuff about GW baloney is great. Practical, real world question is, when are our elected representatives going to acknowledge these facts? Why haven’t a sizable number done so now?
Because most of our Republican congress critters want the same the time Dems do. Just a little slower, and “maybe” to a slightly lesser degree. How many are going to advocate LESS power for themselves? Damn few.
8 posted on
11/30/2009 6:06:44 PM PST by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
To: Delacon
But scientists have in fact broken down each of these systems (e.g., the eye, the bacterial flagella) into components and shown how each really did have a function… albeit a different function than what the system eventually evolved to perform. They have answered all of Behe’s questions, and he has not responded to any of their counterarguments. Behe might not have responded, but others have.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson