Skip to comments.
Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| January 29, 2005
Posted on 01/31/2005 12:15:48 PM PST by Grey Rabbit
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 321-334 next last
To: Rudder
ID, logically would have one explore the designer.
Could be exciting, rewarding, and perhaps . . . expanding?
To: narby
62
posted on
01/31/2005 1:39:38 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: newcats
We were seeded by electroids from the 8th dimension. And the electroids came from where? They Evolved, maybe?
These ID people are such ..... arrrrggghhh.
63
posted on
01/31/2005 1:40:42 PM PST
by
narby
(Evolution isn't an Intelligent design, its a Brilliant Design)
To: jwalsh07
And Joe Farah doesn't work there. So you're saying that Farah doesn't have an agenda? HA!
Farah has published dozens of editorials supporting ID, and has links to many pro-ID products (which is probably his rationalization, to make bucks from you people who buy that pseudo scientific gunk).
64
posted on
01/31/2005 1:43:51 PM PST
by
narby
(Evolution isn't an Intelligent design, its a Brilliant Design)
To: narby
Very good selective reading. I said that "one of the most common tools used by biologists to change gene sequences is to Evolve them". I didn't say the "only" tool.Right, which only means that it was poor attempt at obfuscation.
And my understanding of process of actual "gene splicing" is that subsequent to the splitting and inserting of the foreign gene, the sample is grown and selected for the desired trait. I.E. it is "Evolved". This is necessary because the vast majority of splices fail, and the successful ones must be selected using the same process as Gods "Natural selection".
It is selected by the designer. Why argue something that is inarguable.
Human selection vs. Natural selection. I'm amazed you think that God cannot do what humans can.
Who cares what amazes you? Certainly not me. I think God can do anything God pleases. The mechanisms God uses are entirely up to God.
How little you must think God is.
You're a fool. God is omnipotent, not you narby. You don't know squat. :-}
65
posted on
01/31/2005 1:45:40 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
Comment #66 Removed by Moderator
To: narby
Me:
And Joe Farah doesn't work there.You: So you're saying that Farah doesn't have an agenda? HA!
Here's your big chance Narby. Show us all how smart you are and logically derive your statement from mine.
Can't wait!
67
posted on
01/31/2005 1:47:45 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: GreenFreeper
There is nothing wrong with him being questioned.
But, Mr. Coddington's harrassment and shunning of him is most childish and unprofessional.
68
posted on
01/31/2005 1:48:38 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: narby
I think I am just going to go into the other room and take a nap.
69
posted on
01/31/2005 1:49:07 PM PST
by
furball4paws
("These are Microbes."... "You have crobes?" BC)
To: Paraclete
Unfortunately, I don't think ID folllows logic, but rather faith.
70
posted on
01/31/2005 1:51:00 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: jwalsh07
I think God can do anything God pleases. The mechanisms God uses are entirely up to God. You certianly do not. You don't think that God could have created Evolution.
You have limited God to only that which you can imagine.
You're a fool. God is omnipotent, not you narby.
I can Evolve biology, simply by not taking my medicine. Yet you don't think God could do that.
And you think God is omnipotent?
You have a strange sense of the omnipotent.
71
posted on
01/31/2005 1:53:33 PM PST
by
narby
(Evolution isn't an Intelligent design, its a Brilliant Design)
To: Grey Rabbit
As I've written elsewhere
- Sternberg abused his office as editor by publishing Meyer's article, which does not IMO meet minimum criteria for a scientific paper, and in any case was not consistent with the mission of the journal he edits.
- The editorship in question, however, has no connection with the Smithsonian, and the matter was really none of their business.
- I would have no problem with removing Sternberg as editor.
- I have the gravest of difficulties with sanctioning him as an employee of the Smithsonian for actions carried out as editor.
- And finally, questions about Sternberg's religion or politics in the course of this 'investigation', which IMO should never have been carried out anyway, are outrageous. It is Coddington, not Sternberg, whose job should be in jeopardy.
This comes frm a committed evolutionist who regards as ridiculous Sternberg's beliefs about the origin of species.
To: narby
Narby, I have no problem with God's use of evolution as a mechanism. You are the one with the problem and that problem is your a priori assumption that any who disagrre with anything you say is not capable of knowing God. A sad and small position to take.
73
posted on
01/31/2005 1:56:36 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: rwfromkansas
But, Mr. Coddington's harrassment and shunning of him is most childish and unprofessional. The publishing of an obviously religious document in a scientific journal is what was unprofessional.
The very concept of "ID" is that the researchers have glimpsed actual scientific evidence for God. Something that radical is just simply beyond the pale.
I'm amazed that Christians actually desire scientific confirmation of their belief. What is the use of faith, if science offers proof?
74
posted on
01/31/2005 1:57:01 PM PST
by
narby
(Evolution isn't an Intelligent design, its a Brilliant Design)
To: narby
If Intelligent Design is dismissed out of hand, then one must conclude that the universe created itself from nothing for no reason.
75
posted on
01/31/2005 1:57:34 PM PST
by
massgopguy
(massgopguy)
To: Right Wing Professor
76
posted on
01/31/2005 1:57:54 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
I have no problem with God's use of evolution as a mechanism. Wonderful. Then we agree.
77
posted on
01/31/2005 1:58:24 PM PST
by
narby
(Evolution isn't an Intelligent design, its a Brilliant Design)
To: narby
I am much more skeptical of ID than I used to be after perusing some of PatrickHenry's links.
However, if what is said regarding Coddington's actions is true, it is despicable.
A scientist would not isolate another scientist, shut down his office, threaten him, badger his supervisor about his beliefs.
A real scientist would not do those things.
A real scientist would sit down and write an article challenging the published piece.
A real scientist would challenge the findings, not impugn the man.
Apparently, if Mr. Coddington did what it alleged, ad hominem arguments are fair game when attacking somebody who deviates from the party line.
78
posted on
01/31/2005 1:58:44 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: jwalsh07
I would hope we all have. It's a shame they tend to bend depending on what side we're on.
To: narby
You have no problem with colleagues harrassing eachother?
What if the editor was a woman? Would it be okay for a man to grab her breasts since she made a mistake?
I can't believe I am reading your tripe.
If the editor is to be removed from his position, remove him.
Don't harrass him at work, don't do petty office politics and take away his research office.
80
posted on
01/31/2005 2:01:35 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 321-334 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson