Skip to comments.
Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection
The Seattle Times ^
| 6/3/2002
| Mindy Cameron
Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 681-697 next last
To: Junior
IR says complex eyes could not have evolved that way. No, IR says that complex eyes could not have evolved that way in such a short period of time (relatively speaking, of course). If we assume that there IS a direct relationship between a human eye and an eagle's eye, why isn't there any evidence of it?
To: Junior
One of my favorite predictions has got to be: "One will never find birds with mammary glands" which was used, with some comic effect, on these threads earlier this year.
[very inappropriate reference to more-or-less "child-unfriendly" website deleted]
62
posted on
06/07/2002 1:22:42 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
To: Lurking Libertarian
Gould believed that most species tend to stay stable for long periods of time, and then evolve in a relatively quick (in geologic terms-- still tens of thousands of years) period in response to environmental changes. In other words, Gould was a traditional Darwinist who came up with Punk-Eek to explain why the fossil record contained no evidence of traditional Darwinism.
"The thing that evolutionists seem to have overlooked about the 'missing link' is that it is missing." -- G.K. Chesterton
To: jennyp
I would feel much safer if these folks tracked pedophiles from one school to another as well as they tracked creationists.
To: Dimensio
How is evolution championing conservative causes?
To: lexcorp
...why not save a step, throw out the God hypothesis, and declare that the creation of life/the universe is unknowable? I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps you are too
However, it appears that the overwhelming majority of people are not.
66
posted on
06/07/2002 1:26:33 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: lexcorp
Your post is evidence for the observation that Creationists tend to make bad scientists, and Evolutionists tend to make bad theologians.
Your assumption that the space-time continuum is all there is, is unscientific.
Your assertion that morality can be derived from experience, intuition, and a consensus of society is as mystical as any appeal to a higher power.
You wander off from science all the time, even as you deny doing so. One can't derive morality or theology from science, as science is necessarily agnostic.
When you you make the attempt, you make science your religion, just as the Creationists have asserted. You fuel their fire.
OTH, the problem Creationists have is they don't recognize is that the desire of some to make science a religion doesn't disprove Evolution.
To: f.Christian
How is creationism championing conservative causes?
68
posted on
06/07/2002 1:28:08 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
To: lexcorp
Interesting predictions, but what I find most fascinating about them is that they specifically do NOT apply to human beings.
To: Junior
Dames ... dames with gams.
70
posted on
06/07/2002 1:32:59 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Alberta's Child
In other words, Gould was a traditional Darwinist who came up with Punk-Eek to explain why the fossil record contained no evidence of traditional Darwinism. "The thing that evolutionists seem to have overlooked about the 'missing link' is that it is missing." -- G.K. ChestertonNot missing, although certainly scarcer than Darwin expected. The other part of punk-eek is that evolutionary changes usually happen in one geographic area, and then spread out from there, so you don't find transitional fossils unless you look in the right place.
For example, in most areas of the world, you find very modern-looking human fossils appearing suddenly in the fossil record, with no precursors; but if you dig in East Africa, you find a long line of transitionals, from ramapithecus, to australopithecus, to homo habilis, to homo erectus to homo sapiens. Similarly, reptile-to-bird transitionals were rare till they started to dig in China.
To: jennyp
Ecclesiastes 1
Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher,
[1] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."
3 What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.
Wisdom Is Meaningless 12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!
14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.
16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge."
17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
To: Junior
That wasn't exactly a difficult prediction to make, since Darwin was dealing with a closed system with a defined beginning (at least in theory, even if we don't know exactly when the universe began) and no defined end. If I were to go back through history and say that the human population of any given "system" was lower the further back you go, you'd find few instances in which that was not the case.
To: jennyp
"I want a straight answer, J. Semper Paratus: Are you accusing me of immorality? Please be specific as to what aspects of my [...] sexual [...] practices you find immoral." I don't know what he's thinking about, but I'd never accuse. Hope maybe. But never accuse ;-)
To: Dimensio
Creation can explain--order the dynamics of reality...
evolution only twists--reverses it---'anarchists evolutionary capitalism' a la jennyp!
To: balrog666
LOL! Cute.
76
posted on
06/07/2002 1:37:24 PM PDT
by
jennyp
To: f.Christian
How does that make you feel?
>
77
posted on
06/07/2002 1:37:37 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
To: Alberta's Child
The theory of intelligent design does make predictions about human beings. It predicts they won't have a spinal column structurally similar to and better suited for quadripeds
To: Aquinasfan
The mere suggestion that there may be a God, even alluding to His existence and involvement with intelligent design theory, sets a transcendent foundational framework for civilized moral human behavior that declares a right and a wrong way of living and interacting with others.In the end, that's what it's all about. And you will know them by what they do.
Aquinasfan, please tell me about my immoral behavior. What specific uncivilized, immoral acts do I enjoy doing and try to justify by accepting evolutionary theory?
79
posted on
06/07/2002 1:39:53 PM PDT
by
jennyp
To: Alberta's Child
No, IR says that complex eyes could not have evolved that way in such a short period of time (relatively speaking, of course). If we assume that there IS a direct relationship between a human eye and an eagle's eye, why isn't there any evidence of it? How short a time are we talking about? Life has been on this planet for more than 3 billion years. That is an amazingly long period of time. Eyes were already fairly well developed by the Cambrian explosion half a billion years ago, which is also an amazingly long span of time.
And no one said there is a direct relationship between human and eagle eyes (human eyes are poorly put together, having a rather large blind spot smack dab in the middle). There is a relationship in that both humans and eagles once shared a common ancestor hundreds of millions of years ago before reptiles gave rise to both mammal-like reptiles (the ancestors of humans) and dinosaurs (the ancestors of birds).
80
posted on
06/07/2002 1:40:01 PM PDT
by
Junior
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 681-697 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