Skip to comments.
The attack on evolution
The Economist ^
Posted on 10/07/2002 12:44:39 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 281-284 next last
To: Piltdown_Woman
To: Piltdown_Woman; longshadow
Awwww.... I just clicked on that link and I see that the kindly mods have pulled the thread.
To: PatrickHenry
Awwww.... I just clicked on that link and I see that the kindly mods have pulled the thread. Looks to me like the funny business is starting back up.
To: balrog666
First, have a successful freepathon. Then lower the ax.
To: balrog666; PatrickHenry
Looks to me like the funny business is starting back up.Huge Sigh!
To: Piltdown_Woman
We need a FReeper-evo-thug-a-thon!!!!!!!! T-shirts will be distributed!Hahahaha! Scientific thug bump!
To: RadioAstronomer
Gone for the evening.
God Bless America placemarker
To: PatrickHenry
"You execrable piece of lying garbage ...";.Do you want that embroidered on the front or back of your t-shirt?
To: Piltdown_Woman
Both. And on the baseball cap. And the tote bag, the coffee mug, the mouse pad ...
To: Gumlegs
No one, anywhere, is claiming there is "just randomness" in the world. Materialists are. Evolutionists are. They claim that random chance is the creator of all things. It is ridiculous of course.
To: js1138
Everything in science proceeds by speculation and verification. You are beginning to get it!If the universe were random then science would be impossible because random events cannot be consistently verifiable. Science looks for consistency in the universe and tries to discover it. It would be impossible to find any such consistency in a random universe. Therefore the random universe proposed by materialists and evolutionists is false since we do find consistent laws working everywhere in the universe.
To: js1138
For ID to have any meaning at all, you must postulate something about the designer.ID certainly does. It postulates that the designer is intelligent. That's the only germane postulate necessary. You do not need to know the hair color of the designer to say that something has been intelligently designed.
To: Piltdown_Woman; PatrickHenry
As usual the evo thugs are trying to destroy a thread in which they are losing and losing big. They are trying to destroy it with nonsense and ad hominems. And then you wonder why I call you folk the the Taliban of evolution. Thanks for proving it again.
To: All
Evolution: it's the American way!
To: gore3000
Me: No one, anywhere, is claiming there is "just randomness" in the world.
G3K: Materialists are. Evolutionists are. They claim that random chance is the creator of all things. It is ridiculous of course.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your claim. Back it up. Post a reference from an evolutionist claiming that "random choice is the creator of all things."
195
posted on
10/11/2002 9:05:43 AM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: balrog666
So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID.
This was agreed to earlier precisely because it's a meaningless statement.
Malarky. If you make a blanket statement that ID is not true and cannot disprove it then yours is a statement of belief based on faith. Exactly the ridicule that creationists are getting from many evolutionists.
It's exactly the same as saying that we cannot experimentally disprove the idea that a giant chicken from Pasadena named Harry created the cosmos.
You are using an apples and oranges argument. The fact that "Harry" may or may not exist does not bias evolutionary science one way or another. OTOH, I am talking of inherent bias towards ID that evolutionary science simply cannot get around.
To put it another way, any evolutionary experiment is done as a result of intelligent design. OTOH I know of no experiments done or influenced by your giant chicken.
To: balrog666
Sorry, but even though you claim otherwise, you have yet to name even *one* experiment that was not designed.
Your back-handed reference to self-replicating protein chains was still an experiment based on design (someone had to design it) with certain assumptions made in setting up.
Try again.
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Sorry, but even though you claim otherwise, you have yet to name even *one* experiment that was not designed. Ah, but they were "designed" to replicate natural and not artificial conditions. One can fairly accurately recreate natural conditions in this way.
198
posted on
10/11/2002 9:25:46 AM PDT
by
Junior
To: Junior
Ah, but they were "designed" to replicate natural and not artificial conditions. One can fairly accurately recreate natural conditions in this way.
What evidence do you have, then, that "natural" conditions are not ID in origin?
Just because we have little or no knowledge about the designer doesn't mean there wasn't one. Likewise, I doubt that replicated protein chains in evolutionary experiments have much knowledge of their designers either.
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
Just because we have little or no knowledge about the designer doesn't mean there wasn't one. That, in and of itself, is not a particularly good reason to believe there was a designer...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 281-284 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