Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If you wish to say something to me, you should direct at me instead of responding in such a cowardly and insulting way. YOu may consider the post above an insult, but it is not. It is a statement of fact which cannot be denied, so you need to insult.
612 posted on 6/1/02 10:54 AM Eastern by gore3000
No, no, no. Clinton, Hitler and Stalin may have been born Christians. However none of them were Christian when they came to power just as most of the evolutionists on this forum were born Christian and no longer are.
An outright ad hominem then, which is what I stated.
Might I also suggest that you do not have the ability to know what JediGirl, or me, or anyone else but you is thinking,
You seem to claim the ability to psychoanalyze me from a couple of sentences. You are being quite hypocritical. The whole idea that either of you can know God's purpose or God's ways is extremely arrogant. As I say, we do know as human beings that we have severe limitations and cannot understand things which we know to be true. The concept of infinity is one of them.
Really, then perhaps your friend should go into some other profession, like garbage collection. The average gene codes for proteins of some 400 amino acids in length. There are 20 possible amino acids at each of those positions. The chances of constructing such a DNA sequence are 400^20 power. There are some 30,000 such genes in humans. Multiply the chances of the above, a larger number than all the atoms in the universe by some 30,000 times. In addition to which you need to do it many more times for the many different species out there many of whose genes are diffent from the closest species. So yes evolution is mathematically impossible.
Essentially, your math is internally correct, but grossly misapplied. The best lies have a strong element of truth to make them convincing.
And Java does the garbage collecting for him.
I believe Clinton still maintains his Christianity (and don't go off on that "not a real Christian" BS). While in power, Hitler spouted quite a bit of Christian stuff. Someone please find where Stalin renounced his orthodoxy.
These were Christians who did bad things. It shouldn't be a reflection on all Christians, but trying to deny they were Christian just makes matters worse for you.
The theory of intelligent design posits that organisms are sui generis, that they arose by design, that all the parts of the organism are interrelated.
How does it explain the fossil record?
You seem to think that the fossil record disproves intelligent design. The opposite is true. Evolutionists have been unable to find a single example of macro-evolution in some 150 years. In addition, there is strong proof in the fossil record against evolution. Such proof is the Cambrian explosion where every single phyla in existence arose within a few million years - some 600 million years ago. This is a direct contradiction of evolution.
What predictions does it make?
It predicts that every single part of an organism is intrinsically related to every other part and hence no evolution could ever have taken place. Now if evolution were true, the interrelatedness of organisms would have to be false since clearly random mutation would be totally unable to coevolve in many different parts of the organism to make the changes usable. The genome project has given additional proof to ID. It has shown that the 95% or so of the genome which consists of non-coding DNA is indeed a major part of the functioning of every organism and just as essential to its proper operation as the genes themselves.
How can it be falsified?
By finding proof that traits and the supporting system to make them work can coevolve and have coevolved at some time or other. In other words, proof of macro-evoltuion.
What tests, experiments, or observations are implied by the Theory of Intelligent Design that would be able to verify it?
The interrelatedness of the different parts of the genome are an observation which is implied by the theory of Intelligent Design. It is an observation, a prediction, which has recently been proven and which is nowadays the greatest field of inquiry in the biological and medical sciences.
One of the things the Bible tells us is "thou shall know them by their deeds". What the liar and perjurer claims is irrelevant.
So tell us, how has my math been missapplied?
???????????????????????????????????
You mean CHUCK Darwin??
For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:
Exhibit B:
Of the above two exhibits, one is statements made by an evolutionist to an anti-evolutionist, and one is statements made by an anti-evolutionist to an evolutionist. Question for the board, if you were to guess without knowing, which way would you choose?
Hmm... argumentum ad consequentiam?
My link to the Duke university description makes no mention of free oxygen. It describes a neutral oxidizing atmosphere. "Oxidizing" as a usual chemical reference is the tendency for something to contribute an electron as displayed here Oxidizing Agents
Oxidation is defined in chemistry as gain of oxygen, loss of hydrogen or loss of electrons; the loss of electrons enables you to calculate an oxidation state.
You attempted to bring in Wells and a consideration of free oxygen and I refuse to be tied to that argument. I answered your BIF contention and have answered the pyrite and uraninite considerations. In the process of answering your claims I found information as of 2 months ago that lends evidence to the viability of a prebiotic atmosphere containing free oxygen. That is nice, and would put a bigger nail in the coffin of a reducing atmosphere but an oxidizing atmosphere is enough problem for the alleged reducing atmosphere. The reducing atmosphere of the Miller-Urey experiment has been pretty much abandoned. Now the Miller-Urey proponents are clinging to hope that a neutral atmosphere can explain the chemistry required.
So the "accepted" situation at this point is not a Miller-Urey atmosphere. Evidence is building that free oxygen in the primordial atmosphere is not eliminated as a possibility. The experiments I linked mean things. They are that the partially oxidized minerals UO2(how did it get that way?) and FeS2 are not a conclusive indicator of the absence of free oxygen in the atmosphere. You'll note that the environments for the problematic minerals are beaches and streams. This has a reason. It is also an indication. There were deposits of these materials that eroded or the materials were formed by a process at these locales.
Aw, rats! If it said words, then we'd know how to classify medved and you.
In my long history in these threads, I can't remember a definite example of a creo ever admitting an error. When a creo is clearly shown to be wrong, the usual response is one of the following:
1. Ignore it and bring the error up again later.
2. Insult the bearer of the correct information.
3. Change the subject to an argument about some nit-picking irrelevancy.
4. Claim that the evidence is fraudulent "just like Piltdown Man." 5. Hit the abuse button.
A: The theory of intelligent design posits that organisms are sui generis, that they arose by design, that all the parts of the organism are interrelated.
Basic biology dictates that an organism must be integrated. There is no reason to assume a designer would be so constrained. There is also reason to assume an intelligent designer would have done a far better job on, for example, the human back and the human knee. If a designer created each species, why introduce variation within that species, and why put so much emphasis on reproduction? If all organisms were intelligently designed, why would some species now extinct?
Q: How can Intelligent Design Theory be falsified?
A: By finding proof that traits and the supporting system to make them work can coevolve and have coevolved at some time or other. In other words, proof of macro-evoltuion.
A condition of falsification must always be part of a theory. A theory cannot be said to be falsified by the discovery of evidence for some other theory. Competing theories regarding the same phenomenon must necessarily be independent. Intelligent Design Theory by this definition explicitly hinges its own existence on the continued viability of evolution. If evolution is ever falsified, then Intelligent Design loses it's falsifiability and therefore must also be abandonded.
Additionally, no theory can ever be proven. Evidence for a theory may be gathered, predictions can be confirmed, but proof cannot be had. Falsification of the Theory of Intelligent Design (as is the case with all theories) must rest on observing some event which runs counter to a prediction of that theory. A theory cannot be said to predict its own assumptions.
To assume a designer as an explanation for the species raises more questions than it answers. OTOH, if one were to hypothesize simply that life originated with a designer/god, then evolution would have nothing to add.
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.