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 ...
>>An approximation can never equal an absolute, it can only approximate it.<<
Since I am on a grammar roll, that is a tautology.
>>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.<<
With only billions of physical data points and reinforced by physics, geology, biology and almost every other scientific study, it is meaningless.
Next time you have a vaccine you can laugh off the “quaint little theory” without which you would probably die.
Ah, but what governs those “random” interactions that QM, etc, seek to describe?
Simply because a process is probabilistic rather than deterministic doesn’t negate the fact that the process is governed by set principles which do not randomly change.
>>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.<<
So in other words, the reason you keep spewing your materialist myth is because you’re afraid you won’t look “scientific” enough to our enemies.
It’s a lost cause, dude. You disagree with any “libtard” (I prefer the term “leftard”) scientific tenant, such as evolution, the gay gene, or the inherent benevolence of all government spending (the Tooth Fairy doesn’t provide enough welfare entitlements to suit them), and you are immediately to be shunned as dumber and less scientific than a flat-earther. You can’t help the insane by going insane yourself. If I were you, I’d concentrate less on trying to impress your leftard enemies with how “scientific” you are and try looking for what’s true rather than what’s popular.
I used to believe in theistic evolution myself, but then I started asking why exactly I had to reinterpret everything I believed to impress a bunch of Hell-bound fools who despised everything I believed, and realized that I could do just fine without believing in materialist miracles like something from nothing, life from non-life, and order from chaos.
Miracles are all very fine and possible (though rare), but I cannot believe in miracles without a miracle worker. Neither do I believe that a miracle worker is at all constrained by what a bunch of materialist mythologists at a college for fools think of him.
>>Eliminate the design involved in the “very simple” and you have nothing. Randomness is without pattern, and design involves pattern.<<
Once again, I must help the ignorant.
Study the mathematics of chaos theory and you will find that in randomness emerges patterns.
But this is too deep for most children.
It's the American way. Agree to disagree and enjoy a BBQ together and learn from each other over some good food. :-)
Once again, I must help the ignorant.
Study the mathematics of chaos theory and you will find that in randomness emerges patterns.
But this is too deep for most children.
I may be a stubborn child, but I bow down to your PRIDE.
>>I used to believe in theistic evolution myself, but then I started asking why exactly I had to reinterpret everything I believed to impress a bunch of Hell-bound fools who despised everything I believed, and realized that I could do just fine without believing in materialist miracles like something from nothing, life from non-life, and order from chaos.<<
You conflate action with initiation (a common disorder).
God gave us a deterministic Universe. The rules are consistent and to be discovered (think about it: an eclipse bent light to be able to be measured to trump Newtonian theories - that also answered almost all timeframe geological questions).
God said “this is how the Universe will operate.” From the most massive celestial event to the tiniest bug in a sleeping bag it all makes sense in an ordered Universe — and God designed the whole thing.
Anyone who doesn’t scratch an itch from a mosquito and can’t see that it is as much a part of His Design as a supernova doesn’t get it. Everything in the Universe (and maybe the Multiverse) is part of God’s design.
And, yet, He sent us His Son. To die for us. So we, the humble inhabitants of this little tiny planet, can live forever.
The least we can do is use the abilities He gave us to discover the rules He put in place so we can utilize them for our collective benefit.
And Evolution is a small and demonstrable physical instantiation of His rules and benevolence.
this article is pure propaganda. after all of these years, there remains zero clear transitional fossils that would clearly and indisputably show life forms morphing into other types. Simply is not there. Yes, there is micro evolution as species adapt and change, but that is it. Some scientist simply hate and doubt God...period.
No, it’s simple logic.
Let’s state it another way, since you are a bit slow on the uptake:
There exists a horse. The horse is an absolute. I try to paint a picture of a horse. This is an approximation of a horse, but no matter how realistic my depiction of that horse is, it can never be a horse, only an approximation of a horse.
Even if I were to refine my methodology, and make a three dimensional sculpture of a horse, the same principle holds true. The end result is still an approximation, not a horse. In order to make a horse, I would have to resort to an entirely different methodology than approximation, as the nature of approximation precludes the possibility of me ever achieving my goal.
yes and there is no evidence of species changing anywhere only black moths and white moths and the black ones surviving in the coal regions because the trees are blacker because of the coal soot. This was what i was told(taught) from a high scool text book. I laughed at it then (1968) i laugh at it now.
>>I may be a stubborn child, but I bow down to your PRIDE.<<
Or (my) arrogance.
This is one of those nights where I am fighting demons in RL and taking it out on what should be my FRiends.
I beg your forgiveness.
But I do urge you to study Chaos Theory — fascinating stuff.
Wow, will this thread set a new record for the most contentious in FR history?
What a can of worms !!! Thank GOD, I did not get drawn into it :) Yes, I DO believe in GOD.
>>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.<<
Ooh, you used THAT WORD again! “Stochastic” and every word derived from it mean you don’t have to answer questions because you’re, like, way smarter and more scientific and stuff than we who dare to point out order from chaos, life from non-life, and something from nothing are all impossible. “Stochastic” is the name of a magic wand your fool materialist buddies gave you to wave at me to stop my demolishing your delusion so colossally absurd that you’d have to be an intellectual to fall for it.
Call it “evolution” or a “stochastic process” or whatever you like, it’s all still just materialist mythology. Universes don’t spring into existence from nowhere, life doesn’t evolve from non-life, and single-celled organisms don’t evolve into complex self-aware organisms. Your magic word is fooling no one, you pseudo-scientist.
“Evolution doesn’t address the origin of life, only what happened afterwards.”
Yes I know that and so does Meyer. I find the argument for intelligent design to be strongest in the explanation of origin of life. If one accepts that (and I don’t totally quite yet), then it’s not much of a stretch to also accept the involvement of some intelligence in the subsequent “evolution” of life.
“I have no “faith” in Darwin. He just got the ball rolling. Evolution really answers the objections.”
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems like you have faith in his theory.
“The case for intelligent design may well be there and is certainly attractive but I don’t yet see it.”
And that’s fine - I’m not 100% there yet myself. But that doesn’t mean you or I have to believe in Darwinian evolution, especially after it is so thoroughly dismantled by Meyer.
So this is where I’m at right now.
1. Macro evolution fails at explaining reality as we currently know it - Meyer makes an excellent case for that.
2. There is some evidence to support micro-evolution
3. Intelligent design seems to be the best explanation of all those currently available for the origin of life and also for its macro evolution
4. We have no idea who or what this “intelligent designer” might be (this is the weakest point of ID. Meyer addresses this by saying that if SETI were to detect what we consider an intelligent signal from outer space, we would reasonably conclude that it came from an intelligent source, though, similarly to ID, we would have no idea who or what sent that signal. So if one accepts the existence of an intelligent entity in the case of SETI, then why not accept an intelligent entity in the case of the DNA coding and cellular machinery associated with it?)
5. So with Darwin’s theory discredited and the evidence for an IDer a bit lacking, we’re in limbo theory-wise and so more thinking and discovery and experimentation are needed to come up with a satisfactory theory. But unlike most evolutionists, I would not kick ID out of consideration, I would want to do more research in the area to prove it or disprove it, and not simply demonize it.
Why, exactly, is the possibility of a superior intelligence having intervened on this planet “unscientific?”
What’s unscientific is ruling that possibility out before the fact.
>>There exists a horse. The horse is an absolute. I try to paint a picture of a horse. This is an approximation of a horse, but no matter how realistic my depiction of that horse is, it can never be a horse, only an approximation of a horse.
Even if I were to refine my methodology, and make a three dimensional sculpture of a horse, the same principle holds true. The end result is still an approximation, not a horse. In order to make a horse, I would have to resort to an entirely different methodology than approximation, as the nature of approximation precludes the possibility of me ever achieving my goal.<<
So, your definition of an approximation is an approximation. Sounds like a tautology to me...
But I am done arguing and in the “drinks on me” mode. Too darn bad you aren’t here so I could pay with an analogy of money... :) ;)
As a veteran of the FR Crevo Wars, I doubt that. Haven't seen anybody mention poodles flopping down the street on protowings with a gleam in their eye, yet.
“So, your definition of an approximation is an approximation. Sounds like a tautology to me...”
I’m not defining approximation, I’m trying to explain why approximation, by its nature, is incapable of achieving what the author of the article claims that it can.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with Plato.
It seems, an unanswerable question. Yet, we quest for an answer. Good.
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.