Posted on 02/04/2003 10:42:21 PM PST by CalConservative
Are you sure?
Premise: All Cities with the same initial letter as their state are capitals of their state.
Premise: Dover starts with the same letter as Delaware.
Conclusion: Dover is the capital of Delaware.
I trust you have been well ;)
That seems pretty arrogant of you. I am fairly certain that general_re has a good enough head on his shoulders to make his own decisions.
One note on this thread---. The article does not mention evolution. It recommends that ID use the same criteria for "argument" as those used by scientists in the field of abiogenesis.
Indeed. I recall that March and October are quite pleasant in Texas.
It recommends that ID use the same criteria for "argument" as those used by scientists in the field of abiogenesis.
Not good enough for what ID theorists wish to do with it. Abiogenesis is a purely speculative exercise, as virtually everyone will readily admit. But ID does not seek to complement the teaching of abiogenesis - abiogenesis is hardly mentioned at all in any school curriculum, after all - it seeks to complement (or replace) the teaching of evolution via natural selection. Therefore, the standards by which abiogenetic theories are judged are inapposite in judging the worth of ID - it should, instead, be subjected to the same standards by which the theory of evolution is judged. If, by that standard, it proves equal to evolutionary theory, then it should complement evolutionary theory. Or, if it proves superior by those standards, it should replace it entirely.
Unless, of course, the point is to label ID as a purely speculative exercise also ;)
But papers on abiogenesis get accepted for publication.
I must admit my eagle eye hasn't been watching general_re as I threatened last year, but even so, he can most definitely think for himself. And if general_re thinks I'm in the habit of complimenting him, well, he better not get used to it. :-)
OK
Silliness,
The article is another in a series of creationist dumps
Ah. An entire collection of silliness
pathetic thread.
What a crock of stewed prunes.
I cannot possibly refute such airtight logic.
Yes, this is quite a dilemma. It has been a very long time since I have seen a debate of this caliber but I believe the correct response to these attacking arguments to be:
"Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"
Note: Be prepared for the possible counter-response of:
"Oh yeah, well my Dad can beat up your Dad."
But papers on abiogenesis get accepted for publication.
Without some specific paper in mind, it's difficult for me to judge the propriety of such things. Generally speaking, however, IMO I have no problem with papers that investigate poorly understood or unknown phenomenon which may have implications for abiogenesis. E.g., "we have discovered this novel chemical process - perhaps this has some relevance to abiogenesis". If, on the other hand, there is nothing new to report, and the thesis of the paper essentially boils down to "maybe it was elves", then it probably shouldn't be considered "research", per se.
The real problem is, whether the proposed mechanism is naturalistic, such as the various chemical mechanisms proposed, or non-naturalistic, such as an ID mechanism, there's no clear idea as to what evidence for such a proposal might look like, or where we might find it. So we have several competing possibilities, none of which have any real historical evidence either for or against them. I may have a personal preference for one or the other theory, but it's difficult to avoid admitting that it's based purely on my personal preference, with no real rational reason for accepting it or rejecting another theory.
At this point, the thesis that God personally seeded the oceans with primitive life is at least as plausible as any other theory of biogenesis, be it Urey and Miller's lightning bolt, clay substrates, or whatever. From the standpoint of science, none of those theses is really falsifiable, so none of them are particularly superior to the others. People with a naturalistic bent will probably tend to gravitate away from non-naturalistic explanations, just as people with a non-naturalistic bent will probably tend to gravitate away from naturalistic explanations, but either way, one is simply assuming that the reality of the universe happens to jibe with your own personal philosophy, and assuming such without any real factual basis for doing so.
The truth is, while plausible mechanisms for how life first came into being will probably continue to be proposed, the truth of how life actually did come into being will likely remain unknown for the foreseeable future, perhaps forever. Not to say that we should stop looking, of course, but I have my doubts that any theory of biogenesis will ever become so overwhelmingly compelling that rational people will be unable to avoid accepting it.
Perhaps the only thing that might really carry any weight is if Starfleet gets out there and is able to observe biogenetic processes in progress on other planets. That, in and of itself, wouldn't constitute proof of how life came about on earth, but if we were able to observe the same mechanism operating repeatedly on many planets, with little or no exception, it would eventually come to resemble a rational argument to suggest that the same mechanism was responsible for life on earth. Alas, I think that you and I will probably end up shuffling off this mortal coil without ever having access to such data ;)
Ha. Nice attempt at misdirection - I've seen your agents following me around. And I hear funny clicks and beeps when I talk on the phone these days, so I'm sure you know everything I'm thinking before I even think it.
Excuse me, where did I leave my medication...? ;)
See, you can obviously think for yourself - I can't get anything past you. Good catch! :-)
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.
