Skip to comments.
Evolution Debate creates monster [Flying Spaghetti monster, to be exact]
Lawrence Journal-World ^
| August 24, 2005
| Scott Rothschild
Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 381-396 next last
To: Junior
Please name them. I am genuinely interested. Is NS the driver of the technologies or is it only allowed and consistant?
We're doing ID now. The existance of ID is not in question. The only question is how does it relate to evolution.
DK
To: spunkets
It says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world.ID makes no such claim, even if it were agreed among physicists what exactly the laws governing their discipline are.
182
posted on
08/24/2005 11:40:34 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
To: Dark Knight
The only question is how does it relate to evolution, if at all.
Sorry.
DK
To: stormer
Divine intervention is not a "possibility" that falls under the realm of science. Can you empirically prove that proposition?
Cordially,
184
posted on
08/24/2005 11:42:53 AM PDT
by
Diamond
(Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
To: Dark Knight
Genetics is tracing the descent of modern organisms using the fossil retrovirus insertions found in their genomes. Mutation and natural selection play major roles in HIV and influenza research.
185
posted on
08/24/2005 11:44:38 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: Diamond
Re: ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory.
"Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?See #175. The scientific arguments are aimed at Behe's model, which is rubbish. In fact Behe's model shows only that his model is insufficient to explain the observations, nothing more. A third grader could do the same. The only difference is in the skill expended in the art of the con.
After Behe does a considerable amount of handwaiving, he then makes 2 concluitons:
1. That some unknown, nonphysical abitrary force exists.
2. That this arbitrary force is intelligent.
To: Dark Knight
Darwinian Evolution is being used in computing. There is an active field called evolutionary computation.
To: wideawake
Re: "ID" It says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world.
"ID makes no such claim"
I proved in post #175 that it does. If you think the proof contains errors, you know what you must do. The proof stands otherwise.
To: Diamond; stormer
Can you empirically prove that proposition? It's true by definition. If you want a proof:
P1. Science excludes nonmaterial causes.
P2. Divine intervention is a nonmaterial cause.
C1. Therefore, science excludes divine intervention.
Cheers! ;)
189
posted on
08/24/2005 11:50:07 AM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: Junior
And those are major pieces of the puzzle. It has allowed us to not only cure HIV but also Influenza.
Sorry, that kind of response will get me flushed in the great collander.
It does not seem that useful still. Genetics is pretty cool but aren't we making more advances with our intelligent designer stuff? I certainly read about it more.
DK
To: spunkets
I proved in post #175 that it does.No you didn't.
You made a series of unsubstantiated statements.
If you are going to make the claim that ID postulates a "hole" in physics, then you're going to have to cite at least one primary source.
191
posted on
08/24/2005 11:55:43 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
To: Tim Long
When you ever hear of the "Law of Evolution" get back to me.When you learn something about science get back to us. Hint: at the moment you are demonstrating nothing but your own ignorance of the scientific method.
192
posted on
08/24/2005 11:56:46 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: bobdsmith
So what has it done? I've asked for result based stuff.
DK
To: atlaw
I forget. Was it 1940 or 1952 that scientists discovered sexual reproduction? Oh wait. It was 1968. Summer of love and all that. Never mind.Nice sidestep.
Darwin had no idea how genetics worked and you know this.
194
posted on
08/24/2005 11:58:46 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
To: wideawake
"If you are going to make the claim that ID postulates a "hole" in physics, then you're going to have to cite at least one primary source."I'm the primary source. I noticed you failed to find a problem with the proof.
To: wideawake
"Darwin had no idea how genetics worked"That's correct. Darwin had less evidence, than we do today, well after the mechanism became known and understood.
To: John Scopes
You're not clever, not funny, not even original...just another follower of the 1960's attack the underpinnings of our law and culture movement.
Why such a hostile (and non-sequitur) reaction to someone rightly pointing out that ID is not a "theory" within science?
197
posted on
08/24/2005 12:01:44 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: spunkets
I'm the primary source.No you're not.
I noticed you failed to find a problem with the proof.
The problem with the so-called "proof" is that you asserted an alleged fact which is not in evidence - namely that ID advocates postulate a "hole" in physics.
No ID advocate does this.
I'll also point out again that your "proof" consists of several unsubstantiated assertions.
198
posted on
08/24/2005 12:02:01 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
To: John Scopes
Then you went off on some tangent that ignored what I was actually addressing to someone else.
Which is different from you going off on a tangent and ignoring the comment about ID not being science how?
199
posted on
08/24/2005 12:02:32 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: spunkets
Darwin had less evidence, than we do today, well after the mechanism became known and understood.Or, in other words, Darwin had no plausible mechanism and died without finding one, yet his work was still considered science.
Double standard.
200
posted on
08/24/2005 12:03:30 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 381-396 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson