Posted on 07/18/2009 7:39:00 AM PDT by Gordon Greene
You either misread my post or intentionally misrepresented it. My reference to my bad memory referred to not remembering which post he was referring to and was with the request that he show me where he was referring to. Unlike you, I don’t have 100% memory of where I posted what months ago.
That's probably about the same order of magnitute that applies to my reponding to your post. Imagine. Out of all the millions, of people in the world, both dead and alive, here we are at the same site and posting! For you to be at this site is probably about a 1 to 1 billion odds, me the same! Now to be on the same thread at the same time.
Let's see. 1/1E09 * 1/1E09 * 1/100 * 1/100 = 1/E22. Not to mention actually interacting on the thread! That puts the odds of this happining at least to:
1 in 10000000000000000000000!
Are you a YEC'er or OEC'er?
This is what's called moving the goal posts.
By the way, what excludes ID from being classified as "frontier science" again Einstein?
You evos sure what to make every excuse in the book for any and everything else! But where are the lawsuits?
Conservatives. Sane, normal people...it shouldn’t be THAT hard!
That's all I had time for--I had a lasagna in the oven.
Do you suppose you could offer ANY reasonable challenges to what he (she?) said? Any point?
Sure. Let's look at the one I quoted, speaking of the evolution of flying birds: "every one of these things [wings, flight feathers, a "specialized light bone structure," and other bird features] would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together."
Now, penguins have wings. It's true that penguins evolved from flying birds, but the existence of penguins demonstrates that wings are not necessarily antifunctional in something that can't fly. Feathers are thought to have evolved before flight, possibly for insulation; whether that's the case or not, it's certainly true that feathers provide insulation, so feathers on their own would not be antifunctional in a nonflying animal. On the other hand, bats have solid bones, demonstrating that it's not necessary to evolve hollow bones before taking to the air. So wendy1946 is mistaken on two counts: an animal doesn't need all those features in place before it starts to fly, and those features would not necessarily be antifunctional in a nonflying animal.
Regarding wendy1946's discussion of punctuated equilibrium, she says "Punc-eek amounts to a claim thatall meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas." (Emphasis mine.) TalkOrigins, on the other hand, says "PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one."
wendy1946 says, "It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence." TO says, "PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE."
My point here is not that wendy1946 is wrong because TO says so--I know people on your side reflexively reject anything from TO. My point is that her characterization of what punctuated equilibrium says is her own alone. I think we can trust TO to express the evolutionary argument accurately, even if we don't accept it.
In order to be frontier science, it first has to be science.
First of all, the name’s not Einstein. Second of all, ID cannot be classified as a “frontier science”, because there is no science involved in it. I wouldn’t call that moving the goalposts, I would call it being intellectually honest.
Over their head. I don't think they have a concept of the meaning of the term.
I think I will see this soon to be released, made for t.v. movie exposing Darwin’s fanciful creation myth instead:
http://www.thevoyage.tv/default.aspx
When are you going to Australia?
Interesting that you refer not to God.
Interesting that you would say this. Could it be because your pre-conceived bias and indoctrination has filled your head with notions of Bible thumping evangelists attacking science with religion?
This explains alot. But honestly, the vast majority of people in this country believe in God, so it seems about as unnatural and nonsensical as anything imnaginable that a select small group of people with multiple God-hang-ups have appointed themselves in charge of education for all and a secular humanist one at that!
CLEARLY it's not working. A broken uneasy model that's breaking.
I know again, sooooooo shocking that liberals ruin everything they touch!
Help you guys out a little bit.
One of your contemproraries, noted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and author of “The God Delusion” has opined that perhaps life was “seeded” on this planet by intergalactic aliens. So technically, he believes in intelligent design, I think...
Exactly why I found it odd you didn't refer to God as the creator.
No. That notion is due to a few posters here on FR.
b359, you were saying — One of your contemproraries, noted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and author of “The God Delusion” has opined that perhaps life was “seeded” on this planet by intergalactic aliens. So technically, he believes in intelligent design, I think...
—
Exactly right...
Ask them if they believe in space aliens in UFOs seeding earth — yep..., great idea...
Ask them if they believe in our Creator God creating mankind — no way, Jose...
LOL...
I don't quite get the touchy, preemptive paranoia about this film. From what little can be judged from the trailer alone (I know nothing else about the movie) it looks pretty accurate. "You've killed God," is at the very least the kind of a thing an anticlerical firebrand like Huxley would say, whether or not he said that in fact. I mean, that's kind of an inaccuracy, possibly, as Huxley was a relatively minor character in the Darwin circle as least initially (as compared to someone like the botanist Hooker).
So maybe the movie inflates Huxley's role a bit. (I dunno that it does, but just speculating.) But were they supposed to excise him completely just to make creationists feel better? You guys are starting to sound like a gratuitously aggrieved identity group, the kind which demands history books be modified in the interest of protecting their self esteem.
On the other hand there are several clues in the trailer suggesting that Charles Darwin's own circumspection about upsetting traditional views, sharply contrasting to Huxley's crusading approach, is also portrayed in the movie. Likewise it would appear that Darwin's wife Emily, and her concern for her husband's salvation, is treated sympathetically.
“overwhelmingly dominant paradigm in biological science”
I’d be willing to bet the overall paradigm for biological scientists also includes being left of center politically. It certainly is for political scientist. Does that make that theory of governance the right one?
What if Charles Darwin was really slightly retarded, and spoke with a lisp?
/not saying he did, but what if....?
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.