Skip to comments.
What is wrong with intelligent design?
EurekAlert! ^
| 22-Feb-2007
| Suzanne Wu
Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 641-649 next last
To: Coyoteman
Not to mention it doesnt make a hill of beans what they believe or have to confess to to be a part of a group if the evidence is credible the evidence is credible! Evidence is evidence, period!
To: Wakeup Sleeper
...Scientists question natures fundemental laws. Micheal Murphy University of Cambridge, and the list goes on and on and on! This article on Murphy's research does not support your claim that "Scientists question natures fundemental laws."
Murphy is trying for a possibly more accurate estimate of the fine structure constant. He is not doing anything which supports creation "science" nor which casts doubt on science or the scientific method. (Do you read the things you reference, or just take the word of the creation "science" websites?)
Take a look: Michael Murphy's Research.
282
posted on
03/06/2007 7:54:18 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Not to mention it doesnt make a hill of beans what they believe or have to confess to to be a part of a group if the evidence is credible the evidence is credible! That may be true in apologetics. It is not true in science.
A "scientist" who subscribes to a code of religious belief which is diametrically opposed to the scientific method, such as the one I cited, is not doing science. Any results they produce will be suspect.
I have examined a number of these results in my field of expertise and found them to be wanting. Apologetics, not science.
283
posted on
03/06/2007 7:59:50 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Wakeup Sleeper
No global flood you say?
Fossils--- usually have to be covered quickly by catastrophic means. rapid petrafication of wood.
Do you know how thick layers of lignite are? You need several thousand years to reach this thickness.
For a hypothesis like a global flood it is enough to have just one example for inconsistence. We have several examples from dendrochronology that no global flood could have covered the whole world.
"...if you look at all known imoral places today they are sitting right in great catastrophical potential areas. Makes you wonder! Pompei, Jericho, Sodom , Gomorah, San Fransisco, New orleans, Indonesia, Roman Empire etc...etc.."
Pompei was a part of the Roman Empire.
But what catastrophe happened to the Roman Empire? It was just dissolution.
The conquer of Jericho and the holly land is from my point of view genocide.
Sodom & Gomorrah is a myth (-> global flood).
Indonesia is not immoral at all. Just being a Muslim makes you immoral?
San Fransisco and New Orleans are built on dangerous ground in a blessed nation?
"[America] ...have also been the most blessed nation on the face of the earth ..."
Venezuela is also America. I would prefer being unemployed in Europa than a working poor in the US.
Saudi Arabia is blessed with oil, Russia with gas and Iran with oil and gas.
284
posted on
03/07/2007 3:35:39 AM PST
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: MHalblaub
Intelligent design is no ally to Christians. It only gives you some type of First principle or Prime Mover, as in Aristotle or the 17th century Rationalists. It doesn't lead to the Revealed God or the Incarnate Christ. However, I have a couple of scientist friends (I mean real scientists), one of whom is a physicist, and both say that the "argument from design" is the most compelling argument for God's existence. They remain sceptical, however.
285
posted on
03/07/2007 3:45:54 AM PST
by
gobus1
To: gobus1
"However, I have a couple of scientist friends (I mean real scientists), one of whom is a physicist, and both say that the 'argument from design' is the most compelling argument for God's existence."
Ask your physicist friend about a proper definition of "design". After that you can ask him if biological evolution is a design process. And finally ask him about an intelligent illuminator who will sometimes interfere by changing the wave length of photons and about consequences of this gaffer for physics.
286
posted on
03/07/2007 8:53:13 AM PST
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: MHalblaub
Now, that's a hoot. I think the definition of "design" is the key here.
287
posted on
03/07/2007 11:49:33 AM PST
by
gobus1
To: Boxen
Gotaheadacheafterpageonebumpforlater
To: MHalblaub
Dissolution in the Roman empire, that came from there ever increasing immorality.
How come the walls of Jericho fell inward where this is not understood since when walss are destroyed thaey fall outward.
Sodom and Gomorah is not a myth they have found the actual citys my friend and they are covered with a substance that the locals call Brimstone, this is absolute archeaological fact, like I said you need to catch up!
Indonesia is the porn capital of the world, when the Sunami hit gangs waited and came back to kid nap orphaned children.
A blessed nation but immoral citys.
And for your last ridiculous comments I wont even bother! The United States is what I meant, if you have to be that arrogant. Europes unemployed? have it easy because of those who work! and get ripped off by over burdening taxation,(which also is a job loser, over taxation so slobs can live high on the hog)) dont you remember the stories of old, of the kings and the peasants, it seems they want that all over again, but I got news for you communism doesnt work!
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time!
To: MHalblaub
Pure smack! MHalblob or what ever your name is? You realy should try and be honest!
To: Coyoteman
That doesnt make a bit of sense coyoteman!
Evidence is evidence! You cant argue your way out of it! If a blade of grass is green and someone shows it to be indicated so with evidence, then its evidence, period!
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Evidence is evidence! You cant argue your way out of it! If a blade of grass is green and someone shows it to be indicated so with evidence, then its evidence, period! If a creation "science" website told me I have five digits on each hand, I'd count the digits on both hands before I believed a word of it.
They are simply untrustworthy when it comes to science.
292
posted on
03/07/2007 8:03:57 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: MHalblaub
Coal formations you say, layered by by water from a Flood perhaps? Its nice that you mentioned coal formation(or should I say rapid coal formation which is exactly what the evidencepoints to) which is more evidence to a global flood in which massive amounts of sediment and water and layers of vegitation from enormous volcanic activity that would have occured in a global flood, thanks for the reminder.
Labratory research in the past few decades has shown may be formed quickly. In May of 1972 George R. Hill, Dean of the College of Mines and Minerals Industries wrote an article published in the Journal of Chemical Technology, now known as Chemtech. He commented , A rather startling and serendiputous discovery resulted... these observations suggest that in there formation, high rank coals,...were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event. Hill made coal industinguishable from natural coal in SIX HOURS.
Many more!!!!!
British researchers Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University.
Natural coal may also be formed quickly,--- Argonne National Labratories
Yet Many more!!!!!
For these things covetesnous, adultery, Fornication the wrath of God is coming on those the sons of disobedience.
Forgiveness can be for anyone In Christ! Amen! Sorry about name calling MHalblaub, peace friend!
To: Coyoteman
Thats pure bologne! Evolutionist are the untrustworthy ones they have been caught in countless frauds, Evidence is evidence, there claims arent taken from their own research, its gathered from all sources, and I dont care what your posting was for a resource I dont get my resources from the site you posted, I get it from random articles and many scintists who use to be evolutionist, and they show great evidence which is widely known by the whole scientific community and that it is greatly against evolution. Even Steven J Gould and many other dishonest evolutionists have spoken against their own lack of evidence for the reasoning for believeing in evolution.
To: Wakeup Sleeper
295
posted on
03/07/2007 8:21:48 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Thats pure bologne! Evolutionist are the untrustworthy ones they have been caught in countless frauds... Countless? Nice try.
Name five.
296
posted on
03/07/2007 8:23:58 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
Scientific evidence is scientific evidence, my resource was from an evolutionist turned HONEST!
Nice cut and paste you say? cut and paste would be, the websites you guys always post and propagandise and then say oh look these sites up, there not biased. But that isnt going to fool an honest thinker! The science Ive posted is sound and even some of it was taken from affiliated sources, which doesnt make a bit of difference, if its noted and recognised and been shown to be a probable for evidence it doesnt matter where it came from evolutionists or Christian!!! If it is honest note worthy info, its honest note worthy info. Period! I realy dont think anyone would disagree nor could they! Peace!
To: Wakeup Sleeper
All these sources Ive posted concerning coal formation have NO Christian affiliation, but like I said it wouldnt matter if they did, because evidence is evidence and can be tested and disputed by anyone, in which it isnt disputed, except by adhock story tellers/ embarrased evolutionists.
To: Wakeup Sleeper
The science Ive posted is sound and even some of it was taken from affiliated sources, which doesnt make a bit of difference, if its noted and recognised and been shown to be a probable for evidence it doesnt matter where it came from evolutionists or Christian!!! If it is honest note worthy info, its honest note worthy info. Period! I realy dont think anyone would disagree nor could they! If that is the case, here is some additional "honest note worthy info" which you will assuredly agree with.
These are from my profession, archaeology (western US):
- At 4300 years ago (2300 BC) we are dealing with soils, not geological strata. It takes a lot longer to create geological strata than the last 10,000 years affords. That means we are dealing with archaeology, not geology; soils, not rocks. This is an important point!
- The last 10,000 years are quite well known. We have multiple methods of investigation and dating, including sedimentology, radiocarbon (my favorite), tree-rings, glacial varves, stylistic seriation, paleomagnetism, etc. We even have written records (for example, from Egypt) and pictographs. There is no evidence for complete disruption as would be required by a global flood at 2300 BC (the commonly agreed-upon date for the flood).
- Soils tell the story. We can examine soil layers in many parts of the world; in many areas we have an unbroken record of well over 10,000 years. Any significant flooding (such as the one that created the Channeled Scablands of central and eastern Washington) would have eroded that soil away. And that is just what we see in the Channeled Scablands.
- Native American cultures are continuous before and after 2300 BC. There is no evidence of sudden break at 2300 BC for a global flood. mtDNA patterns allow tracking back to the Out-of-Africa event some 70,000 or so years ago.
- In the western US, there is a cave in southern Alaska dated to 10,300 years, with subsequent mtDNA succession throughout half the hemisphere and coming all the way down to modern times. No evidence of a break and replacement with eastern Mediterranean or Middle Eastern mtDNA at 2300 BC. Rather, mtDNA patterns in the New World link to only five or six founding haplogroups, all of which seem to have formed way before 2300 BC and which are distinctly different from those in the eastern Mediterranean (i.e., they don't match the mtDNA that Noah's family would have had.
- Another archaeological site (based on my own work) has a second founding Native American genetic type dated at about 5300 BP (a thousand years before the date ascribed to the flood); living descendants in the western US have the exact same type. There is no break at the purported time of the global flood.
This evidence is from one narrow field of study -- archaeology, and one small area -- the western US. There is a lot more evidence from archaeology in other areas, and there are a lot more fields of study.
They all fail to support a global flood at 2300 BC.
Perhaps you should forget the coal layers, accept that the flood is a religious belief, and stop trying to twist and distort science in a futile effort to make scientific facts fit your religious belief.
299
posted on
03/08/2007 5:13:50 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: si tacuissem
Not arrogance, physics - to measure the decay rate, you don't have to wait until half of the element vanished ..
It is arrogance of the physicist that believes that the study of a small amount of time in the decay rate of an element is a picture of how it happens all the time.
Your evaluation of my fixation is incorrect in your assumption.
It is not science to believe that what happens now is how it always happens without the ability to test is it is an assumption and that is all.
You can rest assured that your eternal soul will be just ok when this world passes away based upon the hypothesis's of fallible scientist who believe that the pressures of the universe do not effect the decay rate of elements.
Nothing has created everything.
300
posted on
03/08/2007 5:45:00 PM PST
by
Creationist
( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 641-649 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