10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)

Evangelical Outpost ^ | 08/03/2006 | Joe Carter

[RobRoy]

key word: "Probably".

[freedumb2003]

#11 -- Their arrogance. Every other scientific theory invites critical analysis, but Darwinism enforces a united front against criticism

I tell you what -- mount a "critical analysis" of physics, chemistry or astronomy based on a supernatural "designer." Then see what the results are.

The fact remains that there is no competing scientific critical analysis of TToE.

[RobRoy]

"How do SNAKES have legs??"
They don't. At least none that I know of do.

[freedumb2003]

I think the "Darwinist" response to that is that such an occurrence is inevitable if you have an infinite number of solar systems full of blind men trying to solve Rubik's Cubes.

I see we have another person who appears to know little to nothing about TToE who thinks they are entitled to an opinion. Of course, TToE says no such thing.

Do you opine on Particle Physics? Genetic Mapping? Quantum Engineering? I mean, it is clear one doesn't need to know the subject at had to post an opinion.

[Thrusher]

What is more unscientific than infinity?

The mathematical concept of infinity is fundamental to science.

This ultimately proves my point. The question to which Sofa King responded was "Where do your questions stop?" In science (and mathematics), they stop at the concept of infinity, which is every bit as metaphysical as God.

[freedumb2003]

So, then, you believe that Sparrows and mammals have completely discrete evolutionary paths, going back to their very beginning root of "life from lifelessness"?

Merely divergent.

[freedumb2003]

I use the term as one of derision.

So noted.

[freedumb2003]

Actually, IIRC, the Bible was unique in suggesting a beginning. In fact, science pooh-poohed the concept of a beginning until scientists proved there had to have been one. The Bible said it long ago. Science figured it out only recently. Shalom.

Every Creation Myth posits a beginning. The Bible is hardly unique in that. Infinity is a modern concept.

[ml1954]

'And now for something completely different'...follow the link. Ooops, nothing about infinity or the age of the universe there.... 'And now for something completely different'... read on.

[bobdsmith]

To test ID, it is enough to show how systems that ID claims lie beyond the reach of Darwinian and other evolutionary mechanisms are in fact attainable via such mechanisms

How can ID be tested without resorting to darwinian mechanisms? Ie how can it be tested on it's own merits? Answer: it cannot.

[ml1954]

"Where do your questions stop?" In science (and mathematics), they stop at the concept of infinity,

Ughh, I didn't say that. Nope, scientific questions do not stop at the concept of infinity. You need to do a little more research and think a bit more before you post.

[Thrusher]

Do you opine on Particle Physics? Genetic Mapping? Quantum Engineering? I mean, it is clear one doesn't need to know the subject at had to post an opinion.

My comment was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek response based more on the concept of "chance" and probability theory, not about your sacred TToE.

I apologize if I have blasphemed your religion.

/sarc

[RobRoy]

That's like saying most cars are the same. They have tires, a steering wheel and seats. It ignores the details.

And the devil is in the details.

[freedumb2003]

My comment was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek response based more on the concept of "chance" and probability theory, not about your sacred TToE.

I apologize if I have blasphemed your religion.

The question and the comment remain. Do you understand TToE well enough to comment on it? Or are you just posing?

And I suppose TToE is a "religion" in the same way as those disciples of Physics and the blind fool Chemists -- and don't get me started on the dogma of Astronomy.

I mean, who do these scientists think they are?

[Sofa King]

If questions are infinite, then they do not stop "at infinity", since that would mean that they stopped, and as such, were not infinite.

[ml1954]

Imminent head explosion alert.

[Thrusher]

Imminent head explosion alert.

I think that's one thing we can agree on. And I think I'll stop there... I would respond, but we would just continue ad infinitum, and we can't have that, can we?

:)

[ml1954]

I think that's one thing we can agree on. And I think I'll stop there.

A wise choice.

[Thrusher]

The question and the comment remain. Do you understand TToE well enough to comment on it? Or are you just posing?

I have not made any comments about the Theory of Evolution on this thread. In fact, I do not discount the validity of the Theory of Evolution as a scientific principle. I have not and do not proclaim to be an evolutionary scientist of any kind.

My statement about the infinite Rubik's Cubes was in reference to Hoyle's comment about the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids.

And I suppose TToE is a "religion" in the same way as those disciples of Physics and the blind fool Chemists -- and don't get me started on the dogma of Astronomy.

My /sarc tag clearly indicated that I was joking.

[freedumb2003]

Well, there is /sarc and there is /sarc. We get a lot of dripping /sarc from CR/Iders -- many who do in fact post as fact that TToE is blind randomness. So you can see where I drew my enerence from.

I just finished doing battle with some people that really didn't know anything, yet felt qualified to comment. That always bugs me (as you can tell).

And here I promised myself I would take the high road today.

Sorry for the over-sensitive reaction.