Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent designís long march to nowhere
Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-875 next last
Bold and underlining added by me.

ID is running out of friends, when even its natural allies are turning their backs.

1 posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:57 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 12/05/2005 4:07:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Your puerile attempts to suppress other points of view are useless. People are free to investigate and inquire based on their own beliefs. What a sad and demented life you must lead. Each waking moment spent attempting to stifle others so that your own twisted logic is the only one allowed.


3 posted on 12/05/2005 4:12:58 AM PST by Doc Savage ("Guys, I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more COWBELL...Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I never could understand why the scientific explanation of the way things are had to interfere with ones faith in God.

I guess it is because I was raised RC(the original fundamentalist Christian religion) and not into one of the newer Christian faiths.

Yes the R.C. church did persecute people like Galileo etc., but have since seen the error of their ways.


4 posted on 12/05/2005 4:13:25 AM PST by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
If that article isn't enough to start the week, check out these developments in the Dover litigation. Each side is submitting "proposed findings" for the court to work on, which is why this thing is taking so long:

PLAINTIFFS’ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. PDF file, 161 pages long.
DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. PDF file, lots of extra attachments.

5 posted on 12/05/2005 4:15:11 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I cannot say that S&T News is any kind of friend for ID, nor that it ever would have been. I tried it out and found it resolutely opposed to the very notion of Theology having any dependability for any question whatsoever. The magazine appears designed to destroy whatever credibility theology might have ever had. It should really be named Science trumps Theology News.

Thanks for posting this, though. Always good to know that the mainstreamers occupy every height in culture now as ever and are just as blind and self-centered now as ever.

Or are you agreeing that Fred Hoyle looks like anything but a fool for having so readily discounted the Big Bang?


6 posted on 12/05/2005 4:20:01 AM PST by BelegStrongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

IDers will go the way of the Flat Earth Society and Baseball Card Economists. They will remain a cult with devoted followers, but with little respect.


7 posted on 12/05/2005 4:21:21 AM PST by Clemenza (I am here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Your puerile attempts to suppress other points of view are useless.

Oh how your ideaology has blinded you. No one is attempting to suppress anything. All researchers are asking is that ID proponents actually do some science to support their positions. So far, there hasn't been one piece of research done with the aim of finding evidence for design. Partly I believe this can be chalked up to the ID proponents not having clue one on how to test for design. Their whole thesis revolves around, "this looks like it was designed, so therefore it must have been -- and besides, Darwin sucks."

8 posted on 12/05/2005 4:22:26 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The smallest living organism requires a minimum of 239 individual protein molecules.
Protein molecules are made from amino acids.
Amino acids are made of carbon, hydrogen nitrogen and oxygen.
Amino acids joined together in a long twisted string form a protein molecule.
Each protein molecule requires a minimum of 410 amino acids. All formed in left handed spirals. (Protein molecules do not have right handed spirals for some unknown reason.)
The chances of at least 410 amino acids accidentally forming a chain to produce one protein molecule is 10123.
The odds against this happening in at least 239 protein molecules to form the smallest living organism are 1029345.
The odds of that one organism surviving long enough to learn to eat, breathe and reproduce are beyond calculation.
You have better odds of having an explosion in a sand pile and getting a fully operating computer with a copy of XP with no bugs! Good luck
9 posted on 12/05/2005 4:22:53 AM PST by liliesgrandpa (The Republican Party simply can't do anything without that critical 100-seat Senate majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Or are you agreeing that Fred Hoyle looks like anything but a fool for having so readily discounted the Big Bang?

Hoyle was wrong about his "steady state" theory, although at the time he was its champion, it fit the then-available data. He was also wrong when he wandered from his specialty and started babbling about tornadoes in junkyards.

10 posted on 12/05/2005 4:23:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

ID has many foes, but evo has the world saying, "where's the beef"???

LLS


11 posted on 12/05/2005 4:26:30 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

God Almighty, here we go again.


12 posted on 12/05/2005 4:26:38 AM PST by n230099
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
"They will remain a cult with devoted followers, but with little respect."

Ya mean sorta like the general public views evols?

I ain't got no dog in this hunt but it impresses me that evols are not only defensive about a position that they claim has no foundation and are often downright abusive about it. That ain't no way to win a battle considering that the majority of American's think evolution is full of holes.

Might I suggest that another approach is to calmly and without invective explain the position rather than use words like "cult", "ignorant", "bible thumpers", "knuckle draggers", "cousin marrying", et al. All of which I have seen used to describe those that question any aspect of the ToE.

Just a thought of course. If evols want to continue to insult those they wish to convince by all means, that is certainly the way to go.

But then that's the way the ACLU usually operates so I guess it's just business as usual.

13 posted on 12/05/2005 4:32:46 AM PST by Proud_texan ("Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa

You should be thankful that evolution is not the game of chance as you have falsely implied, or you wouldn't be here.


14 posted on 12/05/2005 4:33:25 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
I haven't used Science & Theology News as a source before, so I looked up their About Us link. It starts thusly:
Science & Theology News is the monthly, international newspaper reporting the latest research findings, funding opportunities and discussions on the relationship among religion, science and health ... .

Over the past four years, Science & Theology News has become the definitive source for information about science-and-religion. Our 30,000 national and international readers go to Science & Theology News to learn about research, funding and education in the field. A generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation supports the newspaper, allowing us to offer a subsidized subscription price.

They seem quite legitimate.
15 posted on 12/05/2005 4:35:42 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
The smallest living organism . . .

All true, which means "chance" can't be the explanation; on that, all sides are agreed.

Of course, the odds against Avogadro's number of sodium chloride molecules "just happening" to arrange itself into a cubic crystal are also so astronomically huge as to make the event a practical impossibility.

The conclusion we draw there is that some sort of physical law is at work -- a conclusion that would be justified even if we couldn't yet state the law precisely, as long as there was no compelling reason to the contrary.

What we need from the ID crowd, and haven't seen (and in my opinion aren't going to see), is just such a compelling reason to the contrary.

16 posted on 12/05/2005 4:37:06 AM PST by TheGhostOfTomPaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan

Going to the "general public" for views on science is like going to a chef for open heart surgery: NOT QUALIFIED.


17 posted on 12/05/2005 4:40:39 AM PST by Clemenza (I am here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
That ain't no way to win a battle considering that the majority of American's think evolution is full of holes.

Exactly one-half of the population of America has an IQ of 100 or less. And, even if the majority believe in space aliens and ghosts...should we let those who are uneducated and unqualified dictate the course of science?

18 posted on 12/05/2005 4:42:37 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Maybe my naivete is extreme, but it seems to me that science would have nothing to research if there was no reason in creation. Isn't that what scientists DO... try to find out how things work? If they kept discovering chaos, they would stop.
Those of us who believe in divine creation are all the more awed when science uncovers yet another layer of amazing interrelationships in the universe. (The Golden Mean is a prime example). I remain awed, and firmly believe that ultimate discovery will come when we "see Him face to face". In the meanwhile, no approach to science is wrong, or sacreligeous - they all serve to humble us even more.


19 posted on 12/05/2005 4:49:51 AM PST by Ike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Reagan didn't operate on that principal, he believed that Americans could be talked to, not insulted or talked down to.

Seemed to work out pretty well for him and for our country.

But of course if the annointed elete don't wish the great unwashed to be educated and that the annointed ones are only those that have the answers then that's probably not an issue.

But to me at least that kinda sounds like how liberals operate.

20 posted on 12/05/2005 4:56:07 AM PST by Proud_texan ("Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ike
Maybe my naivete is extreme, but it seems to me that science would have nothing to research if there was no reason in creation. Isn't that what scientists DO... try to find out how things work? If they kept discovering chaos, they would stop.

Sure, scientists look for patterns and principles that describe the underlying order in what may look superficially like chaos. And many people (the famous Deist from whom I took my screen name, for example) have regarded the existence of such order generally as evidence of a "cosmic architect" or "designer."

But that's not what the ID folks argue. They claim to be able to tell apart two different kinds of order: one that can be explained in terms of the operation of natural law, and one that can't. It's only the latter that they attribute to the operation of intelligence.

As a matter of science, their "argument" founders on the fact that they haven't got any reliable way to tell the two apart or any real program for investigating the matter scientifically.

21 posted on 12/05/2005 4:56:14 AM PST by TheGhostOfTomPaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I didn't suggest going to the general public for science; I'm saying that science has done a very poor job of presenting their case to the general public.

Laying out a theory in a way a lay person can understand it rather than calling them idiots might be a better strategy.

22 posted on 12/05/2005 4:57:46 AM PST by Proud_texan ("Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I never thought of it that way....but ID'ers are the Democrats of Science. No plan, No ideas....just "we hate Darwin" and "It's Darwin's Fault". And, if you don't agree with them....you get called names such as "purile" and be called a "truth nazi".

It all sounds SOOOOOO familiar....

23 posted on 12/05/2005 4:58:06 AM PST by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
"The chances of at least 410 amino acids accidentally forming a chain to produce one protein molecule is 10123.
The odds against this happening in at least 239 protein molecules to form the smallest living organism are 1029345.
The odds of that one organism surviving long enough to learn to eat, breathe and reproduce are beyond calculation."

I don't know from where you get your probability calculations, but assuming they are correct, if these processes occured millions and millions of times, one would get 410 amino acids forming a protein molecule fairly quickly and easily. Same with forming the smallest organism.

24 posted on 12/05/2005 4:58:47 AM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
If evols want to continue to insult those they wish to convince by all means, that is certainly the way to go.

Evols realize that Creationist IDealogues have demonstrated by their refusal to either defend or abandon discredited arguments that they are not open to convincing .

Ergo Plan B: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

25 posted on 12/05/2005 4:59:07 AM PST by Oztrich Boy ( the Wedge Document ... offers a message of hope for Muslims - Mustafa Akyol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheGhostOfTomPaine

"They claim to be able to tell apart two different kinds of order: one that can be explained in terms of the operation of natural law, and one that can't. "

How do they explain "natural law" in the first place? Where do they say it comes from?


26 posted on 12/05/2005 4:59:41 AM PST by Ike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KeepUSfree
ID'ers are the Democrats of Science.

Could be a tagline

27 posted on 12/05/2005 5:01:20 AM PST by Oztrich Boy ( the Wedge Document ... offers a message of hope for Muslims - Mustafa Akyol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan

Fair enough.


28 posted on 12/05/2005 5:01:28 AM PST by Clemenza (I am here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa

And if these things occured on a second or so worldwide, in the 6 BILLION years they earth has been around that means that this could have occurred 6,000,000 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 1,892,160,000,000,000 times so far (at a minimum)...so those "1 in a billion" odds don't look so bad when you do something 1 quadrillion times....


29 posted on 12/05/2005 5:02:17 AM PST by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
I cannot say that S&T News is any kind of friend for ID, nor that it ever would have been. I tried it out and found it resolutely opposed to the very notion of Theology having any dependability for any question whatsoever. The magazine appears designed to destroy whatever credibility theology might have ever had. It should really be named Science trumps Theology News.

You are missing the point completely.

Science is the study of what happens when God does not intervene.
Theology is the study of what happens when God does intervene.

Inteligent Design might be true, but it can never be Science. It is by definition Theology. Therefore is shold never be taught in Science Classes.

If people want to be honest and add Theology classes to public schools, that would be OK with me, but don't debase science.

So9

30 posted on 12/05/2005 5:04:25 AM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
if these processes occured millions and millions of times

Infinite combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time can explain everything that exists. Shall we call this "science?"

31 posted on 12/05/2005 5:05:01 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
The problem is that scientists aren't typically the types that go into public relations and the media types who report on science seek controversy over accuracy. I've had some of my research reported on by the NY Daily News and Newsday...I didn't recognize my own work (I had been doing for two years.)

I opt for more and better Sci-Fi movies as a substitute for the MSM. (with tongue in cheek).

32 posted on 12/05/2005 5:05:23 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa

I'm curious. If you deal every card in a deck of playing cards out in front of you, what are the odds of you dealing the exact sequence of cards you end up with? Funny thing, those probabilities.


33 posted on 12/05/2005 5:10:01 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
" The chances of at least 410 amino acids accidentally forming a chain to produce one protein molecule is 10123."

10123 is not a probability.

BTW, there is no reason at all to think that abiogenesis would work that way. The rules of chemistry are no random.
34 posted on 12/05/2005 5:13:09 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
"I opt for more and better Sci-Fi movies"

Allow me to be the first to sign on to that proposal!

And yes, the few times I've been involved in a story I haven't recognized it either. Scary.

35 posted on 12/05/2005 5:16:06 AM PST by Proud_texan ("Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
Each protein molecule requires a minimum of 410 amino acids. All formed in left handed spirals. (Protein molecules do not have right handed spirals for some unknown reason.)

Human myoglobin has 153 amino acids. Human cytochrome c has 104 amino acids. Hen egg lysozyme has 129 amino acids. Where do you dig up this rubbish?

36 posted on 12/05/2005 5:24:06 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
All formed in left handed spirals. (Protein molecules do not have right handed spirals for some unknown reason.)

It's all based on the stereochemistry involved.

Simple chemistry dictates that amino acids can condense and that a chain containing 410 amino acids units will form via condensation quite readily. It's freshamn chemistry.

37 posted on 12/05/2005 5:29:28 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The story has a hint for the ID crowd. The Big Bang made a prediction of something that 1) we hadn't seen or guessed before, and 2) came true.

So, IDers, tell us something we didn't know, based on your theory. Then go find it.

38 posted on 12/05/2005 5:34:29 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
... should we let those who are uneducated and unqualified dictate the course of science?

Of course not. Those ignorant, unwashed masses of little people have no business doing anything other than what WE tell them to do.

I read your comment just as I was falling off yet another turnip truck so I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. But it seemed a bit elitist, don't you think?

39 posted on 12/05/2005 5:35:35 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Infinite combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time can explain everything that exists. Shall we call this "science?"

Believe it or not, there are scientific theories based on essentially that idea. Provided an infinite universe, there will be a region of space with the exact same arrangements of matter and energy as we have here. There is a statistical probability for this. A very low probability, but a finite one. But given an infinite universe, that makes that low probability a certainty. That means there are multiple Fester Chugabrew's and doc30's out there.

40 posted on 12/05/2005 5:37:49 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Infinite combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time can explain everything that exists. Shall we call this "science?"

Basicly yes, but some clarification is needed here. There are not an infinite number of combinations as the structure of the amino acids will only allow so many combinations. Have this finite number of combinations attempt to happen milions and millions and millions all of times all over the earth where the primordal soup existed and bingo, you start having protein molecules. That's called science.

And, the process very obviously is not happening for an "infinite" amount of time because the primordal soup from which we came ceased to exist in that form millions of years ago.

Where did you get in my post that this suggests an explanation for "everything that exists"? That is not science.

41 posted on 12/05/2005 5:39:16 AM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
You can't compute odds without a model of the event. You evidently think complex structures jump together all at once from amino acids. At any rate, that's what you modeled. There's very little evidence for this ever happening.

The closest analogy I can find to your model is the Genesis creation story. A man is formed from dust in one afternoon. Yes, it's pretty ridiculous. I doubt even God would do it that way.

42 posted on 12/05/2005 5:41:46 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Speaking as a believer, I think science would be aided in it's advancement by not ignoring the 100% accuracy of the Bible regarding physics.

God states in the Bible that we humans should know he is God because he tells us the ending from the begining. There is recorded in it's pages details of future physical events that will greatly impact not only the earth but the universe.

For instance the sun will grow hotter and scorch the earth and it is the sun's power, not man that will cause global warming on a scale that blisters men with sores.

It also relates the rising seas, roaring tides, the sudden stillness of the sea, it's turning red and watery as a dead man's blood, now the evidence is in, we have the "red tides". We are told that this red tide will kill every living thing in the sea. This red tide has already appeared from Galveston to Italy devastating the fishing industry with each appearance.

We are told that the stars will appear to fall, that the earth will rock to and fro on it's axis like a drunkard.

All these things are coming, it's rediculous for science to disregard the Bible out of hand. Especially given the universe is speeding up rather than slowing down as predicted, the red tides are here, the melting of polar ice, and the contested global warming, the conditions that are causing fish kills on a massive scale are here.

The speed up of the universe could be explained because of the black hole discovered at the center of the Milky Way, or some other reason yet to be discovered. We count on science to ponder the causes of these future events, identify them, and use the same physics used to discover the Big Bang, to verify where we are along our clearly marked path using the Bible as it's template.

I don't think that it's alot to ask of science to stop being one step behind the Bible, blindly following along after the fact instead of in sinc.


43 posted on 12/05/2005 5:49:30 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

If an Intelligent Designer is responsible for things so complex they could not have happened by chance, surely the Intelligent Designer is the most complex of all.

So who designed the Intelligent Designer ?


44 posted on 12/05/2005 6:03:34 AM PST by Axlrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy
But it seemed a bit elitist, don't you think?

Ahh gee, I wish I could say I'm sorry.

Should we just let anyone do science or surgery or rocket design? And why wait all those years plodding through high school and college, just to satisfy some smart elitist?

Nah, there a damned good reason that those pursuing such professions are intellectually endowed.

45 posted on 12/05/2005 6:05:26 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ike
How do they explain "natural law" in the first place? Where do they say it comes from?

Probably many (most? all?) ID proponents are of the personal opinion that an intelligent creator is responsible for all of natural law as well. But that's not part of the official theory of intelligent design, because ID itself doesn't seek to explain the origins of things that can be accounted for by natural law.

46 posted on 12/05/2005 6:06:51 AM PST by TheGhostOfTomPaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Apher, Bethe, Gamow link.
47 posted on 12/05/2005 6:23:06 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I think science would be aided in it's advancement by not ignoring the 100% accuracy of the Bible regarding physics.

Way to go, Miss Pie!

48 posted on 12/05/2005 6:23:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: All
Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

49 posted on 12/05/2005 6:26:05 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'm convinced that Behe and thus ID are nothing but a book selling charlatan hoax. What baffles me are the people who fall hook, line, and sinker for this hoax. On one hand it's understandable that a person who's never studied science could easily be deceived by charlatans (after all they're selling their pseudo science books to someone). But, on the other hand it would seem that people who fall for a charlatan hoax and are interested in understanding evolution would sooner or later get around to reading a real science book. The evidence I see from these threads is that the trolls who keep invading seem to relish digging themselves deeper into the pit of ignorance when it would be so much simpler and more personally rewarding to just read the science books that debunk the pseudoscience. What is it about pig-ignorance that causes otherwise rational people to wallow in it? Common sense tells you that a any new heavily marketed best selling book that starts off telling you that all the other scientists and experts on the planet are wrong is feeding you a line of stinky BS.


50 posted on 12/05/2005 6:26:49 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-875 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson