Posted on 01/13/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by Heartlander
First of all, I also have a degree in chemistry and thus approach these matters from the perspective of a scientist. That's a perspective that you don't have, no matter how many scientists you know. And if you're playing that game now, I know a lot more scientists than you. A lot more. Some believe in evolution, but a large percentage of them believe in intelligent design, especially the chemists and biochemists.
And why would chemists and biochemists be likely to support some form of intelligent design theory? Primarily because we understand, for example, how many chemicals are involved in such things as blood clotting, vision, digestion, etc. If a particular enzyme out of the many required for blood clotting, the blood doesn't clot less well, it doesn't clot at all. Evolution simply does not explain how all the chemicals managed to get in the right place at the right time. Does that make sense? I would suggest you read Behe's book for a good explanation of why this matters. There are others as well but Behe does a decent job of laying things out in a manner that non-scientists can understand.
Arguing with you has grown tiresome. You're uneducated (and seemingly proud of it), like to engage in silly word games, and abusive. I also recall that you posted a silly statement around post 151 about the apostles building an army. I called you on it and, of course, you were unable to provide a source except for unnamed secular documents that only you and probably Art Bell have access to. Right. And you have the gall to accuse me of not backing up my claims! Evidently you didn't read the source I provided -- something every scientist learns early on in their education -- that the notion of evolution was around 2,000 years before Darwin popularized it. So, yes, Galileo and Newton were creationists in whatever strange way you want to define it.
I'm not going to play your games any more, so don't bother to spew out more of your abusive nonsense. If you truly support evolution, keep arguing because you're doing a great job of making your side look silly.
Spoken like a man who is blowing smoke and takes off running as soon as he is challenged.
LOL Run, boy, run.
Well, that's not a bad thing much of the time. The scientific community is guided as much by politics as it is by the pure love of scientific discovery (if not more so). After all, gotta brown nose the right people to get funding for research.
LOL Run, boy, run.
Now, as for ID not being science; if science (as currently defined) is:
1. Impartial investigation
2. Applied materialist metaphysics
What does science do when to two go opposite ways?
I suggest you look through our exchanges. You provided not one fact and not one link. I even specifically asked you for sources regarding your wild claims and in post 155 you refursed to provide any! On the other hand, I provided you with a link showing that scientists developed general, if incomplete, theories about evolution more than 2,000 before Darwin (something that any good science textbook shows) yet you still maintain that people like Galileo and Newton weren't creationists! I also recommended Behe's book for a layman's explanation of why so many chemists and biochemists are skeptical about the claims of evolutionary theory. What's more, you refused multiple times to explain why post-Darwin scientific geniuses from Joseph Lister to Werner von Braun believed that the universe was designed intelligently.
In short, you're long on bombast and fanciful claims and short on anything resembling an intelligent, reasoned argument for your position.
If you read the exchanges between Aric2000 and me you'll find he believes that there was no such thing as a creationist before Darwin. Never mind that Aristotle postulated the theory of "dynamic change" regarding animals and plants some 2,000 years before Darwin and that others, most notably LaMark, had pretty highly developed theories of evolution long before Darwin and Huxley popularized it. To quote him:
"The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se, because there was no need for it, there was NO other theory. Of course they believed in creationism, or said that they did, because there was NOTHING that competed with it at the time."If you believe that steaming shovelful, then I've got some great oceanfront property in west Texas to sell you!
In all my time as a Freeper I've never come across anyone so pointedly ignorant and as d@amn proud of it as Aric2000.
You may like to think I'm running, and that's just fine with me. But I will be vindicated, and you will not be.
Like I said, it will be fun to watch, LOT'S of fun!!
I do admit that you have me confused and yet very curious… I hope you will share this information with us all – please!!! We can all watch with you - and as you said, it will be “LOT’S of fun!!”.
Here's one for starters, you simpleton:
Simon Conway Morris, “Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,” Cell 100 (2000):1-11.
In this article, Conway Morris (a paleontologist and professor in the Department of Earth Science, Cambridge University) argues that “when discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd.” Conway Morris goes on however to stress that “our understanding of evolutionary processes and mechanisms is incomplete” (p. 1), and “constructing phylogenies [evolutionary histories] is central to the evolutionary enterprise, yet rival schemes are often strongly contradictory. Can we yet recover the true history of life?” (p. 1). He concludes his review of current problems in evolutionary biology with a provocative thesis:
...if evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose. It is no coincidence that interest in the Anthropic Principle, which broadly seeks evidence for the boundary conditions of the Big Bang and the ensuing physics and chemistry uniquely favoring the emergence of life...is being extended to the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology (for one view, see Denton, 1998)
The book Conway Morris cites here -- by the New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton -- is entitled Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.
I assure you that we're all mystified at how you so consistently come up with the wackiest posts at Free Republic.
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.