Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
Response: For instance: schizophrenia, hemorrhoids, MS, MD, bubonic plague, cancer...And to think I've been stumbling through life thinking these (and innumerable other "features") were the result of a blind and indifferent process!
"Some" is not interchangeable with "all." Check your dictionary for further explanation.
Thank you for your well written summary of "Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design"
I have archived this.
I think one of the best "one liners" from it is, "Although [ID] believes in the possiblity of the miraculous, [it] defines miracles as a suspension of the general (not natural, GENERAL) order of works."
`
Congratulations! Two apostrophe errors in the same sentence.
Well, I don't know what you actually do for a living, but you should be a chief detective in a big city, head of the F.B.I. or C.I.A.
Excellent work on documenting the scoundrels.
I think I understand part of your problem now. You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with paleontological working hypothesis.
An hypothesis of the diet or behavior of a prehistoric animal has no bearing on the theory of evolution.
Two of your citations are from the mid 70s and one is 13 years old. Don't you think the state of the art might have advanced since then? Can you find any more recent cites.
How do you know you're posting in English?
It does if you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds.
I'm sure I could find some but it would be pointless, wouldn't you say?
Sigh...
You apparently think the fossil argument rests on some few glamorous pictures like of Roy Rogers riding a T-Rex from a 50's comic book. I suggest you try some of the links you've been offered, or actually visiting a working paloentological museum. If you are going to mount an argument against something, it would be more effective if it was something occupying the real world.
You're using alternate definitions of the same word to try to make a point. Like the word "theory", "faith" has different meanings depending on the context.
When people say "I've got faith in modern medicine can remove this mole", they are using faith in the sense of being trustworthy.
That is far different that "faith" in a religous context which, at least in the Christian sense, is belief without proof.
You are using defintion #1 in part of your sentence and definitions 2,4,5 and 6 in the other part and then saying that the since the words are spelled the same, they must mean the same thing.
faith ![]() ![]() n.
Idiom: in faith
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fid ![]() |
C's in english...follow me around all day and find more...better bring a fresh red ink pen.
"I didn't accuse anyone of "mass fraud" as you call it."
Your original statement:
"Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe..."
By "lead us to believe" you indicate that science has taken a deliberate, active role in misrepresenting the facts.
If that ain't an accusation of fraud, I don't know what is.
Not really. ID'ers actually put forth few if any specific and concrete proposals, and at least some of them individually seem to accept the common ancestry of humans and apes, and maybe even the common ancestry of all life (e.g. Behe). Of course others are fairly strict creationists. This is the whole point of the ID movement. Through vapid and vacuous arm-waving it provides an "umbrella" under which a variety of evolution opponents can stand. It's this political function, and not scientific demands, that determine the movement's character and content.
Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.
Just so. "Some features." They don't like to be pinned down, however, on just what features, and won't even discuss how, when or on what their nebulous "intelligent cause" acted. Read ID materials from now till Sunday and you won't find a single word addressing the actions of their "intelligent cause".
Every scientific theory must have a mechanism. ID'ers pretend to have a mechanism, but then won't talk about the mechanics of the mechanism. To have a mechanism and then refuse to address every single particular about it is just nuts from any remotely scientific perspective, but again this is what the political purpose of the "Intelligent Design" movement demands.
Some paleontologists believe that the dinosaurs and birds just have a very close common ancestor. I believe Jim Bakker is one in that group. Scientists don't try to hide this disagreements - instead they go on TV and talk about them because it excites them.
Again, how does this show that evolution has problems?
Roy Rogers riding a T-Rex??? I thought he rode Trigger.
I'm thinking the number of extent fossils would number in the millions, including the lovely 1-inch trilobite sitting on my bookshelf at home.
How many fossils have been found? You seem to have all the answers so you tell me.
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.