Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
I always wondered why they don't demand to include God in quantum mechanics for instance: ... and the electron tunnels through the barrier, so God will (or should I say insh'Allah).
You are quite wrong on that. The examples given were from his published works. His mysoginism, racism and immoral barbarism are part of the theory of evolution. Darwin catered to the lowest instincts in man - that is the reason for its popularity.
Who says that it has to be answered here on earth? As I 've mentioned, it is quite clear that the ID math model of life origins on earth says that there isn't enough time for such complexity to have come about by naturalistic processes. This ID model isn't the only such model or speculation from those out of the evolutionary field itself. It is simply a recognition of a very REAL problem that's been known in the evolution camp for some time. The mathmaticians simply put numbers to an already known problem with the EvoTheory itself. It IS part of the scientific process to propose solutions to KNOWN PROBLEMS with any theory. The time/complexity problem has been a KNOWN PROBLEM with EvoTheory WITHIN ITS OWN FIELD for at least three decades.
The proposal that earth was "seeded" by intelligent life from outside our system says that life originated elsewhere. Once we get to this particular ELSEWHERE, it will probably be quite clear in that DIFFERENT SYSTEM how life came about.
There IS CONSIDERABLE data on EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL LIFE. There are renowned projects in the scientific community SEARCHING FOR extra-terrestrial life. They are funded with serious dollars by institutions of higher learning and by dollars from the government itself. There are RESPONSIBLE sightings of objects and phenomena that are unexplained but which are clearly indicative of ETI.
Do you believe that this vast universe contains only OUR intelligent life form? Saying "yes" to that question is as religious a statement as to say that the earth was created in 6 days.
If we have to wait to get the answers in perspective because the data doesn't fit here, then so be it. I'm an adult. I can handle it. Everything doesn't have to start and end with earth and man.
You ask ten evolutionists what the theory of evolution is and you get twelve answers. Some theory! Evolutionists cannot even tell you what the theory is!
Makes one wonder how an evolutionist could ever go on a plane! I mean, trusting one's life on what they consider a totally unproven theory seems totally insane!
You constantly repeat the mantra that the theory of evolution is valid while at the same time you deny that any proof of it is possible. If there is no proof then how can it be a valid theory? If there is no proof, how can it be called science. If there is no proof how is it different from an atheistic/materialistic belief?
No it hasn't, you have. It is just accepted that evolution is the best scientific explanation so far,"
If there is no proof for it then it is not science, it is a belief. Your continued insistence that it is science in the absence of any proof shows that the claims of evolution are totally bogus and that it does not belong in the public schools but its own church.
Wrong on several counts. Physics and chemistry are proven sciences, evolution is not. They also do not purport to prove that religion is false. In addition to which, you can teach biology perfectly well without teaching evolution. In fact, IMHO you can teach it better without teaching evolution.
Wrong, the applications of the theory prove the theory correct. Everything you see around you is proof, practical proof of some scientific theory. You think that if the theory of gravity was false we could have made it to the moon by using it? Of course not. As I said, you set a ridiculous standard of proof in order to excuse the failures of your theory.
Further, even by your own admission above, a scientific theory needs be useful. What benefits to mankind has the theory of evolution provided?
How is that proof of anything? How is that proof of the correctness of his theory? When one bases a theory on false assumptions, the theory itself is false. A building cannot stand when its columns fall. Let's see how much of Darwin's phony theory has been disproven:
1. His racist brachyo-cephalic index for lower species has been shown to be a farce.
2. His numerous statements on apes being the progenitor of man have been shown to be false.
3. His theory that the characteristics of each parent "melded" in the children was proven wrong by Mendellian genetics.
4. The fossil record, 150 years later still does not show gradual evolution.
5. His hero, Malthus, the original chicken little, has been proven wrong by the tenfold increase in humanity while nutrition improved.
The biggest scientific refutation of Darwin though is that he never gave an iota of proof for macro-evolution and that now, 150 years later, the proof looks even less likely to ever be found than it was when he made his totally unfounded assumption.
As I already told you, the quotes were from his theory. His theory is mysogenist, racist and barbaric. Let me give another quote on the barbarism of the theory of evolution from the concluding paragraph of the "Origins':
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life,
Some grandeur! War and famine he calls grandeur! As I said, the bad qualities pointed out are intrinsic to the theory of evolution.
I have, it's phony. The starting point of it is a re-classified and renamed skeleton from a hyrax, a totally different genus from the horse.
Furthermore, if evolution were to be true, the examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record should be the rule not the exception. An example or two of gradualism (even if they were valid) is not proof.
Okay, this I have to see. Tell me how the murderer of Christians and Jews misused the teachings of the Bible. You make a lot of broad accusations, let's see you prove them with specifics.
No, they are arguing about the theory itself. The theory that Darwin posited. That evolution occurs gradually. The theories of Gould and Kirmura have just as many problems as those of Darwin but different ones. Gradual evolution is the foundation of Darwinism and it has been totally blown out even by its friends - thanks to as I mentioned when this discussion started Mendelian genetics.
Well put. One of the opponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" in Science courses criticizes it because it cannot be examined by the Scientific Method. "We don't study theology, simply because nobody has invented a 'theometer,'" she pithily stated.
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.