Posted on 08/12/2014 8:09:40 PM PDT by JimSEA
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Come back again when you do find something better.
For a control sample we have a known man created species
And for a test sample we have a species of unknown but assumed naturally evolved origins evolved.
If your unable to distinguish between the control sample species that is known is intelligently / man created and the test sample species assumed naturally evolved...you cannot say you have proved evolution and disprove intelligent creation because you can not prove or disprove a known created species.
I am NOT arguing for or against evolution versus intelligent design i am arguing for staying truth with the scientific method.. if you can't prove it you can't stay it is proven
>>Which explains why it’s still called the theory of evolution<<
Oh Alex!! What a disappointment! I always thought you were a sharp egg!
A Scientific Theory is NOT a “guess all grown up.” It is a fundamental explanation for a set of phenomena. It is the highest order in the science pantheon and is even more fundamental than an axiom.
The Theory of Evolution is the most comprehensive Scientific Theory in modern science, surpassing many Physics theories such as String and Quantum or even Cosmology such as the light shift.
If we understood Gravity Theory as well as we do TToE we would have anti-grav platforms today.
Evolution doesn’t address the origin of life, only what happened afterwards. I have no “faith” in Darwin. He just got the ball rolling. Evolution really answers the objections. The case for intelligent design may well be there and is certainly attractive but I don’t yet see it.
Wow. Talk about exposing your ignorance. So, you don't need to explain how simpler life originated from non-life in order to explain how more complex life originated from from simpler life? So, expecting your origin story to include... you know, an origin is unscientific? So physics, biology, cosmology, and geology are thoroughly useless for explaining how life got here in the first place?
So you're admitting evolution isn't even remotely scientific, can't be explained by or incorporated into any scientific discipline, and you basically believe in it only because otherwise you and a lot of your fellow mythologists at schools everywhere would be out of a job?
Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Just because hobbits don't really exist doesn't mean we all wouldn't appreciate your telling us an entertaining story about them, you know. Just ask J.R.R. Tolkien.
“Intelligent design” has no scientific application unless and until you are introduced to the corporeal designer and can give it the specifications of what you want produced.
ID posits a really good supernatural consulting subcontractor.
There are lots of things I have to answer with “I don’t know” I don’t have a book to refer to. Funny thing though, as time goes by, I have more answers.
Debbie Boone? That’s Billy Preston’s tune.
>>Wow. Talk about exposing your ignorance. So, you don’t need to explain how simpler life originated from non-life in order to explain how more complex life originated from from simpler life? So, expecting your origin story to include... you know, an origin is unscientific? So physics, biology, cosmology, and geology are thoroughly useless for explaining how life got here in the first place?<<
Did someone slip you a “canards for TToE” crib sheet? TToE explains how stochastic processes created species over long periods of time. My statement is (upon extension) if you attack TToE based on abiogenesis then you must also attack physics, geology, cosmology, etc. on the same basis. There is no specific onus on TToE to refer back to The Beginning. Unless you also think Physics must justify its tenants.
>>So you’re admitting evolution isn’t even remotely scientific, can’t be explained by or incorporated into any scientific discipline, and you basically believe in it only because otherwise you and a lot of your fellow mythologists at schools everywhere would be out of a job?<<
I work in IT. I have been pretty clear that TToE is completely scientific and it is rubes like you who do not understand science that make Conservatives a target for libtards who say we are anti-science.
>>Why didn’t you just say so in the first place? Just because hobbits don’t really exist doesn’t mean we all wouldn’t appreciate your telling us an entertaining story about them, you know. Just ask J.R.R. Tolkien. <<
The only thing good about straw men is that in real life you can make s’mores if you have all the ingredients. Your straw men are just evil.
I recall that someone who either submitted an article about, or sent a letter about, the Shroud of Turin, was told by the Scientific American that “the policy of the Scientific American is that the Shroud of Turin does not exist.”
>>Debbie Boone? That’s Billy Preston’s tune<<
One song and now she is on freaking late night sales show TV.
And she was never all that cute (I went to college with here for the one year she was there).
>>Ah, the old abiogenesis canard. I have a one word answer: stochastisism. Learn it then you can maybe understand why your bald assertion is ignorant nonsense.<<
“You keep usin’ dat word; I do not tink it means what you tink it means.”
“Stochasticism is a scientific religious philosophy that reconciles traditional religious beliefs with scientific knowledge.”
Translation: “I used a big fancy obscure academic term unknown to most laymen to conceal how ignorant, illogical, and self-contradictory my belief in the materialist myth of evolution is. Therefore I need not explain how life originated in order to explain how life originated. Kneel before my sesquipedalian loquaciousness, you ignorant peasants! Kneel! KNEEL!!!”
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to expose to many others the folly of your arrogant elitist ways.
1) “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a legal standard, not a scientific one.
2) It’s completely outside the bounds of science to “establish truth”. Science only attempts to fashion approximate explanations for our observations. Truth, on the other hand, is an absolute, that we surmise from metaphysical principles is the origin of our observations. An approximation can never equal an absolute, it can only approximate it.
I am good with that.
Logically, if something cannot come from nothing, and something exists now, then something must always have existed. There must be at least one thing that is eternal in order for anything else to exist, if the axiom is true.
That context works for me. :)
“You keep usin’ dat word; I do not tink it means what you tink it means.”<<
Freaking idiot. I derived the term Stochastism from Stochastic, a scientific concept (thus foreign to you):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
“In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is non-deterministic”
Stochastic processes EVOLVE along non-deterministic lines but are not truly random.
But it isn’t my job to teach ignorant philistines like you. It is just to point out just how ignorant and foolish you are.
Next time you want to display your ignorance, do it with a smaller audience.
Macro evolution is a quaint little theory promulgated by men who could neither see nor understand the complex biological micromachines that God created. They only saw the surface of these wonders and couldn't understand their complexity.
Eliminate the design involved in the "very simple" and you have nothing. Randomness is without pattern, and design involves pattern. Anyone who looks at biology sees sophisticated pattern with lack of randomness. "Kind" implies programming pattern of non-randomness.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
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.