Posted on 08/20/2002 2:15:59 PM PDT by restornu
Yep. The whole point of every form of "scientifically" slanted creationism, including ID as promoted by most of its proponents, is to avoid the process of professional scientific review that any other theory included in the curricula is expected to undergo and withstand.
The nutso enviro-whacks do the same thing, and are an even bigger problem than the creationists as more of their ilk are found among those who actually write curricula. But you can't fight any of these charlatans effectively if you don't fight all of them with a hardnosed and uncompromising commitment to academic standards and integrity.
And what useful content has ID ever generated or even threatened to generate? "That can't have evolved!" equals "Goddidit!" equals "So, punt!"
If I am a conservative and libertarians are conservative, that doesn't mean I am a libertarian.
If I am an ID advocate, and creationists are ID advocates, that doesn't mean I am a creationist.
The argument from design is as old as the bible, and I think it makes sense that this marvelous complexity did not make itself. Someone has simply found a way to quantify that using statistics and probability.
What do you think?
It means you're one of the few who have been suckered by the creationists' ID scam.
The argument from design is as old as the bible ...
Older, probably.
... and I think it makes sense that this marvelous complexity did not make itself. Someone has simply found a way to quantify that using statistics and probability.
It makes no sense that all the evidence for evolution is a mass delusion. And you've been suckered further by a bunch of nonsensical statistics.
Does this mean we're having an elevated discussion? :^)
I disagee. There is strong evidence for a pastward singularity. But the very existence of that singularity implies that it is unknowable what might, or might not, have come before it. Creation ex nihilo is therefore an article of faith, in science just as in religion.
I'll tell you what, though, I love horses and the racetrack. I haven't been in a few years, used to go all the time with my Dad, but I used to bet a couple bucks here and there. (That'll make my bishop upset!)
In any case, I know a BAD bet when I see one.
Let me ask you this: Do you think life starting on earth in an evolutionary way was a LONGSHOT or do you think it is so common that it was inevitable?
Answer the question clearly, please. And then feel free to add any proviso's, explantions, whatever that you feel necessary.
The origin of life itself is not part of traditional evolution theory, which only explains how life (once it existed) proliferated into all the species we see today. However, the origin of living material does not seem all that improbable. Organic compounds -- the building blocks of protiens, have been found on meteorites, and have been located drifting in space. The stuff seems commonplace. Given a planet with oceans of water, plus billions of years, and the way that organic compounds naturally combine, it not only seems likely that self-replicating molecules could eventually form, but -- because we're here -- it's a 100% sure bet that it does happen.
Anyway, I'm outta here for the evening. Perhaps we'll continue tomorrow.
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
You think that the origin of life is commonplace if I read your response correctly. All you need is a place with proteins, water, time, and, voila, there it is.
Well, we disagree. I'd say that that process would be a longshot. Too bad. Maybe we'll talk some day.
The point is that matter as such loses its structure before you even get back to the singularity, and even the energy goes away by the time you get there. The matter we see is of finite origin under any viable model of the universe, even the steady-state theories.
You know what we need? "Team Pond Scum" jerseys, every one with a number on the back. I get dibs on jersey # 2.718281828459045235360287471352662497757... ;)
Pond scum come and pond scum go lots of bacterium but no embryo
The problem is, he hasn't. As the sage once said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." These arguments based upon statistics and probabilities are using incomplete sets of data. For example, if you wanted to determine the probability of A from an incomplete set of A, B, C, D, you'd conclude A occurs 25 percent of the time. However, if more data crops up expanding the set to A, B, C, D, A, A, A, A ..., you'd be wrong. This is basically the old "God of the Gaps" argument in new cloth.
Yes, life is probably common in the universe. But that does not diminish us. The odds against the appearance of our species, and than against any one of us appearing out of the human population are enormous. So I think each of us is unique and precious, unlikely to ever be duplicated. If we were the product of a miracle, the deity who created us could -- if he wished -- instantly create billions just like us on a whim, and that would cheapen the value of the individual.
I claim pi.
"Sons of Pond Scum" would be a great name for a rock band.
I'd prefer something more dignified. We should have pride in our heritage.
Remember how War Emblem stumbled coming out the gate at the Belmont this year? COMMON would stumble and PECULIAR would win by a mile.
Common would be a bad bet.
Besides that: Do you know what Jesus had to say about the origin of life?
That may well be true, but that seems to be assuming the premise. [First of all, I am neither a mathematician nor do I play one on TV. I am a lawyer. But I do know something of the danger of assuming one's own premise.]
The argument given above assumes not merely that the data are incomplete, but unrepresentative. For example, all polls are incomplete, but statistics theory assures us that, if we are careful in our approach to the data, the data should be representative and therefore the 'incompleteness' is irrelevant.
Thus, to carry the day, you have to show that the data upon which the ID theory is based are unrepresentative. Of course, this is on the order of the evolutionists' shooting themselves in the collective foot, since they use the same data for their theory.
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.