Skip to comments.
Cornell president condemns intelligent design
©2005 Syracuse.com ^
| 10/21/2005, 12:03 p.m. ET
| By WILLIAM KATES
Posted on 10/21/2005 10:26:36 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 441-454 next last
To: mlc9852
You imagine yourself clever, don't you? Perhaps your viewpoint suffers from your severe braincell deficiency. Or a lack of education. Or maybe you are just limited by the poor selection of your parents.
61
posted on
10/21/2005 11:52:04 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(A myth by any other name is still inane.)
To: Brilliant
So why are they talking about it?Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) says creationism violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
So if IDists want to teach "Intelligent design" as a alternative scientific theory to evolution they'll have deny who that designer is.
62
posted on
10/21/2005 11:52:30 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
To: hawkaw
What exactly is an "ape-like creature"? Teddy Kennedy?
63
posted on
10/21/2005 11:52:40 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: balrog666
You are absolute proof of devolution. I bet you don't have many friends.
64
posted on
10/21/2005 11:53:22 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Jimmy Valentine's brother
The problem is that it is not being taught as theory but as a natural law.
Natural law? Can you explain this further?
65
posted on
10/21/2005 11:53:47 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Once again, a CrEvo thread has degenerated into name calling.
I can sum it up for all of you:
Darwinist: You're an idiot!
Creationist/IDer: No, you are!
66
posted on
10/21/2005 11:53:55 AM PDT
by
Disambiguator
(Making accusations of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
To: PatrickHenry
67
posted on
10/21/2005 11:54:04 AM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(We DARE Defend Our Rights [Alabama State Motto])
To: Behind Liberal Lines
oriental sunrise
breath taking color
stillness silhouetted in an image
bentfeather
Question: Who did it? Personally I believe both; 1) a creator who created dinosaurs which in time became extinct. We know they walked this planet, we have seen their bones.
2) a creator who created this universe and its planet(earth) to evolve into a planet which would sustain human life.
3) Just my humble opinion.
68
posted on
10/21/2005 11:54:40 AM PDT
by
Soaring Feather
(If down is up, is up, down. Feathers in the wind.)
To: mlc9852
I will never, ever believe humans descended from apes until I see irrefutable proof, which I don't believe exists.
In other words, you hold common descent to a standard that no scientific theory will ever meet.
69
posted on
10/21/2005 11:55:16 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: unlearner
String theory is part of protoscience. String theory and the other similar theories "are better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism".
"Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis which has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency".
"While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory".
Go to wikipedia.org to learn more about scientific theory and how it releates to the different disciplines.
70
posted on
10/21/2005 11:56:23 AM PDT
by
hawkaw
To: Dimensio
Sorry - I still don't reply to you.
71
posted on
10/21/2005 11:56:36 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
You are absolute proof of devolution. I bet you don't have many friends. You don't love me any more? Oh, what will I ever do?
72
posted on
10/21/2005 11:56:45 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(A myth by any other name is still inane.)
To: hawkaw
"I believe microwaves were used as a testible way to demonstrate the bigbang theory."
As a byproduct through expansion?
I'm not sure how this could prove the theory!
It may show a 'possible' effect of it, but proving the event actually happened seems more like a guess.
73
posted on
10/21/2005 11:57:57 AM PDT
by
Bigh4u2
(Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Would it strike any conservative (any true conservative - I'm not referring here to Patrick Henry) unusual that a far left CommuDem liberal "educator" who, as a secularist, is a firm believer in social Darwinism and doesn't believe in God, would make a statement like this???
Certainly seems normal to me. Cornell, one of the most evil secularist schools in the world, populated by anti-American socialist maggots, would certainly gravitate towards any theory that promotes randomness versus design.
Always wondered how many drunk, drug-addled, depressed students commit suicide at the Falls each year? At least it would get them out of that hell hole!
74
posted on
10/21/2005 11:58:15 AM PDT
by
Doc Savage
(...because they stand on a wall, and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
God-hating evolutionists misrepresent I.D., while scientifically illiterate I.D. proponents misrepresent evolution.
Same thing as every other Crevo thread.
75
posted on
10/21/2005 11:58:16 AM PDT
by
Sloth
(We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
To: RadioAstronomer
What is "pseudoDarwinism"?
I'm thinking that it's the cartoon version of evolution (and everything else that creationists ignorantly lump together as "evolution") that creationists trot out and knock down as "proof" that the last 150 years of research in biology are bunk. It's that claim that life emerged from dead rocks, and that nothing exploded and became the universe.
76
posted on
10/21/2005 11:58:17 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Bigh4u2
I'm not sure how this could prove the theory!
You're right to be skeptical. Scientific theories are never proven, so nothing will ever prove any theory, no matter what it is and no matter what theory is referenced. Theories can be strengthened with evidence, but they will never be "proven".
77
posted on
10/21/2005 11:59:08 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: balrog666
Why aren't Darwinists happier people? Probably because they see no value in human life since they consider it is no more than random DNA thrown together. How sad.
78
posted on
10/21/2005 11:59:45 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
And yet you accept the existence of God without irrefutable proof.
How do you decide which things need proving and which don't?
79
posted on
10/21/2005 12:00:34 PM PDT
by
dmz
To: dread78645
"So if IDists want to teach "Intelligent design" as a alternative scientific theory to evolution they'll have deny who that designer is."
That's assuming the 'designer' was God..
If I lived during prehistoric caveman times and I 'designed' say, a watch, I might appear to be 'God'. But in the end I would only be a more Intelligent being.
80
posted on
10/21/2005 12:00:44 PM PDT
by
Bigh4u2
(Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 441-454 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