Skip to comments.
Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
Sioux City Journal ^
| 29 September 2005
| Staff
Posted on 09/29/2005 3:36:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 561 next last
To: Nathan Zachary
Well, tell me what this evidence is!!! Try post 52 here.
More evidence than any reasonable person would be able to wave away.
161
posted on
09/29/2005 9:17:38 AM PDT
by
Dementon
(You're unique! Just like everyone else!)
To: Ford4000; highball
What rules are these? They can't be very robust as we have scientists constantly saying that evolution is not a theory but a proven fact. It is highly amusing that creationists make statements like this and then, without a trace of irony, accuse evolutionists of equivocating the word 'evolution'.
To: Dimensio
This is an even sillier objection. Should we also mention that the theory of evolution doesn't adequately explain planetary orbits?Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?
163
posted on
09/29/2005 9:20:49 AM PDT
by
KMJames
To: CarolinaGuitarman; Nathan Zachary
That's a lie. Most have doctorates. You list is chock full of psychologists and people who lived hundreds of years ago. And indeed several of the Steves are Nobel Laureates. How many living Nobel Laureates on your list, Nathan? And have you counted the Steves on your list of medical doctors and professors of linguistics?
164
posted on
09/29/2005 9:22:57 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Thatcherite
Nah, this is the way the evolution debate usually goes.
Creationist: Theres NO evidence.
Scientist (GCSE standard or above): Heres a bunch of it.
Creationist: *fingers in ears; eyes closed* Theres NO evidence. Oh and heres why carbon dating sucks. And here are ten scientists who believe in God.
To: PatrickHenry
Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. A theory that all other theories are wrong. Hmmmm. Sounds like religion to me.
166
posted on
09/29/2005 9:24:42 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Nathan Zachary
Name your 300. There are more scientists than that named "Steve" on the evolution side of things.
167
posted on
09/29/2005 9:26:12 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: doc30; FostersExport
Scientists are highly qualified in their areas of study. outside those areas, a scientists knowledge drops significantly. It all depends on their level of interest and participation in areas outside their realm. Even where I work, different scientists have different ideas about each other's specialties and are not necessarily aware of what those other areas entail. Which is why you occasionally run across a geologist who finds ID convincing, or a biologist who is worried that the young-earth geological arguments have some substance.
168
posted on
09/29/2005 9:26:22 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: highball
predictions can be made based on itWhen I asked about these "predictions" and what was the next evolutionary development we are likely to witness, I was directed to a link that described "retrodictions" and other linquistic contrivances that explain the "predictions" are not predictions at all.
Be real - how much stock would you put in the "predictive" powers of someone who can only "predict" the past?
169
posted on
09/29/2005 9:28:39 AM PDT
by
KMJames
To: KMJames
Because, BY DEFINITION, Evolution is the study of the Origin of Species, NOT the Origin of Life. You know it and every other Creationist knows it. Why do you keep spouting things when you KNOW they are bogus?
Now, if you want to have a discussion on the Origin of Life, then post a thread concerning Abiogenesis or the Creation. You will find many who will gladly discuss that with you, and the scientific side will not talk about evolution.
Just because Creation covers everything, doesn't mean that Science must operate the same way.
170
posted on
09/29/2005 9:36:07 AM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: KMJames
Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?
Defining the scope of evolution isn't a problem. I have to do it frequently when creationists ask how evolution can explain things in cosmology. The problem is in claiming that evolution is somehow "limited" because it doesn't explain things outside of its scope.
171
posted on
09/29/2005 9:39:57 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Nathan Zachary
Further, carbon dating is seriously flawed. I use Carbon-14 dating all the time. Could you please elaborate on the flaws? For example, the date I received a few months ago of cal. 7140? What's wrong with that one?
172
posted on
09/29/2005 9:40:06 AM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(New tagline coming soon)
To: Coyoteman
Limits to effectiveness and margins for error count as serious flaws to creationists.
To: KMJames
Be real - how much stock would you put in the "predictive" powers of someone who can only "predict" the past?Quite a lot if that person keeps finding valuable mineral deposits for an example from another field, or who predicts in advance of mapping genomes what similarities they will have with the genomes of other species for an evolutionary biology example.
I don't put a lot of stock in people who raise bogus objections to the numerous (some of them startling) predictions made by the theory of evolution. For example it was predicted that a fossil sequence from land-mammals to whales would be found, and eventually it was. How would ID predict that?
174
posted on
09/29/2005 9:44:05 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
To: Nathan Zachary
The ToE is the best scientific explanation man has regarding the development of life on Earth.
I reject theism, but I am a creationist in that I only see two logical explanations regarding the origin of the universe: either it has always existed or it was somehow created from nothing. Both of these choices violate the physical laws as we know them, but of the two creation is the least illogical. When whoever or whatever caused the original creation did so, the laws of nature came into being at that time. These laws dictated the path that the universe took through the ages, including the origination and evolution of life.
I reconcile all this by realizing my philosophy of creation will not and cannot ever be tested, at least not by any conceivable method we have or can imagine. Thus it has no place in science.
This concept makes me hated by ID proponents, even more so than their disdain for atheists. For I am not proposing that God doesn't exist; I believe He just doesn't care.
Does my philosophy mean that if I were a scientist you would include me on your list?
To: Thatcherite
It is true that it would be an interesting experiment to take a section of some species population from an environment, dump it in a different, but habitable environment and predict the effects of evolution. Thing is, the species could evolve in an unexpected manner. How accurate would you have to be to pass the test? And the experiment would take a long time.
Has this been tried at all?
To: metmom
"How can they speak on a subject that they admit ignorance of."
Overflowing Confidence plus brimming biblical ignorance combined w/ the foundation of pride = arrogance.
177
posted on
09/29/2005 9:53:44 AM PDT
by
gobucks
(http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
To: KMJames
Be real - how much stock would you put in the "predictive" powers of someone who can only "predict" the past? Didn't I see you on the OJ jury? That explains a lot!
178
posted on
09/29/2005 9:53:45 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(A myth by any other name is still inane.)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Thanks. I skimmed it and it looks like a good read. I'll save it for later.
179
posted on
09/29/2005 9:55:12 AM PDT
by
ml1954
To: Dimensio; furball4paws
The problem is in claiming that evolution is somehow "limited" because it doesn't explain things outside of its scope.Well, come on now - certainly we agree that there are biological "things" outside the scope of evolutionary biological science. This point is made time and again on these threads: furball4paws reiterated it again to me in post #170.
Now why on God's green earth (colorful language intended) is it so friggin' unacceptable to articulate this point regarding biological "things" - to students who are there to learn about biological "things"?
180
posted on
09/29/2005 9:56:14 AM PDT
by
KMJames
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 561 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