How did astrology?
Why hasn't science dispensed with it? On another thread I dispensed with Astrology in 2 sentences proceeding from their supposed scientific evidence.
So astrology is finally gone now? Good. It just needed Kevin OMalley to dispense with it. No more of those silly horoscopes in newspapers from now on.
My frustration is, where is the simple, straightforward refutation?
Have you ever looked? Did you read the lead article to this thread? Where is the science in ID?
And what part of ID do you need dissected, anyway? Behe? Nothing to him. Or maybe Dembski, Spetner, and Gitt's info-theory mumbo-jumbo? Or how about Jonathan Wells? There is no theory of ID. There's an outcase group with a grab-bag of mumbles against some aspect or other of common descent, natural selection, random variation, or all three. Not even coherent enough to deal with in one piece.
If it's witch doctor science, it should be just as easily dealt with on a rational level.
As just shown, it's been done and done and done and done and done. The thing is, when you're dealing with Holy Warriors, they're going to keep coming back dumb as a stump because that's what they do.
If ID only has vague mumblings, then how did it get this far?
How did astrology?
***Astrology did NOT get this far. The president is not pushing to have astrology taught side by side in a science class. Reagan's wife was a dippy astro-believer, but that's as far as it got.
So astrology is finally gone now? Good. It just needed Kevin OMalley to dispense with it. No more of those silly horoscopes in newspapers from now on.
***Astrology is not being proposed by the president to be taught to our kids in classrooms. As far as I can tell, we'll never get rid of those silly horoscopes but that is not the issue. I guess you really did need Kevin OMalley to show you that ;-)
My frustration is, where is the simple, straightforward refutation?
Have you ever looked? Did you read the lead article to this thread? Where is the science in ID?
***I'm looking now. There are some great threads at Patrick Henry's home page. There is a ton of material, suggesting that there has been a rather large, ongoing scientific dispute for some time now. If that were not true, the president wouldn't have waded into these waters. I myself have stayed away for the most part on the crevo threads because the flame wars are too contentious and mean-spirited.
And what part of ID do you need dissected, anyway?
***My interest is in those probabilities, the protein thingie, which seems well covered in the abiogenesis link provided.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
As just shown, it's been done and done and done and done and done.
***Not on this thread. The game has changed now that GWB has stated a position. You'll attract mainstream intellectuals into this debate. All your hard work in compiling information will now come to fruition. But if the abiogenesists continue in an arrogant attitude, it will work against them because arrogance is a sign of someone defending their own religion.
The thing is, when you're dealing with Holy Warriors, they're going to keep coming back dumb as a stump because that's what they do.
***I can see that you folks are frustrated, but it also appears that there is still some work to be done. First of all, calling them dumb doesn't work -- the strategy got turned on its head when the libs used it against GWB and they misunderestimated him. Secondly, it is simply not true -- looking at that article by Ian Musgrave shows that the creationists have been using finer points of science to generate their positions. That is not dumb. If it IS disingenuine or a lie, then the advantage goes to the abiogenesists. Thirdly, the game is now on for what will be taught to our children in schools, and criticizing sincere believers as Holy Warriors just makes you look like a Holy Warrior for your own side, defending your own philosophy/religion. As long as the debate can be framed in that manner, the advantage goes to creationists. 4th, this is a suggestion: The SETI folks have their own Drake Equation calculator at http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179074
There should be one that includes the Drake Equation stuff alongside the Musgrave information and a person could see what their own assumptions would generate in terms of probabilities of life both here and on other planets.