Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
I'm getting pretty tired of dishonest creationists, sometimes it seems like that's the only kind there is.
Hey now.....I'm trying to be honest. Oh drat! I can't think of a one-liner. :)
Plenty of Freeper creationists have claimed in the past to have been "converted" from evolution to creationism. Funny thing is, to a man, they fail to be able to state the theory of evolution. They all proudly disavow cartoon versions of it.
A text can be outlined in a hierarchical manner. Ooh. Ahh...
Sorry, was I supposed to be impressed?
The ID as science people don't agree with you, but I'm still waiting for that test... ;)
I worked in a public library for a few years. We used to have this 4-year-old genius come in. The kid had developed his own theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs. I can't remember what it was (no it wasn't the proliferation of dirty diapers), but it was pretty impressive for a kid that age.
Heh -- okay, there's at least one exception. ;-)
Heck, I barely consider you a "creationist", at least not the strictest sense. In the more broad sense of the word, a lot of evolutionists are also creationists, so clearly there are many varieties under that one definitional umbrella, and you definitely seem in a different category than the ones I'm talking about (i.e. the kind who usually inhabit these threads).
Some of us may state that, but for a lot of us, the "test" is one of our faith in it, that being faith in a Supreme Being, being God. Thus, it is not one of science and can never be completely as such. I often say that the complexities of things in nature make me think that it was designed, but such is more of a declaration of faith than being based on tested scientific evidence.
I see that the IAPC (International Association of Pedantic Coxcombs) has revoked your certification. Did you get caught perpetuating an ambiguity? Thankfully I'm still a blackguard, and apparently I'm damned too, which always makes my day.
Hey, you're honest, that's no fun. How can I mock you and expose your pathetic falsehoods. [scuffs ground and kicks cat petulantly]
Any good scientific theory is subjectable to testing. Theories that cannot be tested are merely speculation or wishful thinking. In testing for design, three things must be established, contingency, complexity and specification. The flow chart below shows how the testing process works. It is called the explanatory filter8:
Heck, I barely consider you a "creationist", at least not the strictest sense. In the more broad sense of the word, a lot of evolutionists are also creationists, so clearly there are many varieties under that one definitional umbrella, and you definitely seem in a different category than the ones I'm talking about (i.e. the kind who usually inhabit these threads).
I am indeed a strict creationist, I just believe that there are indeed some truth to evolution (as proponents of ID actually are admitting too). My differences are ones of personality--I can insult and poke fun at myself, I don't take myself too seriously, I can respect different beliefs of others without getting into a hissyfit (at least on some issues:), I take an objective approach (or a dumb joke approach) rather than an absolutionist approach, and so on and so on. Learning some things about evolution strengthens my belief in creationism. That doesn't mean I am completely right or regard myself as such. I learn and I adapt at times. I'm not some "expert" nor am I deeply gifted with words. I usually have bigger and better things to worry about rather than how I began. Nonetheless, for some dumb reason, I can't keep off coming to an evolution thread every once in a while.
I don't let myself be mocked, though I think I traveled that fast one time in a jet. I mock myself enough already. I don't need any more help at it:).
e.g., Penrose Tiles can't.
My neighbors name is Penrose. Their flooring was manufactured.
I had a glance through that material and couldn't see anything that looked like an experiment that would have the potential to falsify ID. If ID is consistent with all possible observations then it is perfectly useless. Anyone else see it?
YEC SPOTREP
Here are some of the avenues of investigation that ID scientists want to follow:
1. transcendent creation event where all matter, energy, spacetime began (Big Bang)
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
4. rapidity of life's origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. rapid recovery from mass extinctions (mainly through appearance of new species)
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
19. molecular clock rates (which show humanity's recent origin)
I find it perfectly reasonable that they should be able to follow whatever lines of inquiry shows promise. Anybody disagree?
20. global flooding, 2304 BC (explain lack of evidence)
it is probably fair to call the common ancestors of both modern apes and modern humans "apes"
it is also probably fair to call modern humans "apes"
It's probably why so many of us go ape over so many things.
amny things make monkeys of men
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.