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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,195 next last
To: Virginia-American

Newton certainly had some "interesting" outside activities. I guess you have more time if you're willing to die a virgin.


1,101 posted on 10/02/2006 2:41:34 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: GreenOgre
I'm still waiting for a list of Hindu, Buddist, Athiest, and muslim scientists to sign on that ID or Creationism is backed by scientific fact.

Muslim scholar Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal ( PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences), the editor of the journal Islam & Science, is on the list of 600 Scientists who have signed on to the Dissent from Darwin organized by the Discovery Institute.

See also this paper from a Zoology professor at a Pakistani College --- Prof. Abdul Majid, entitled -- THE MUSLIM RESPONSES TO EVOLUTION :

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm

In this book, he catalogs a list of Muslim scientists/scholars who refute evolution.

I would not depend on Muslims ( even scientists ) to be allies of Darwinists if I were you. A lot of them hold to a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis.

For Jewish Scientists who believe in the Harmony between the Bible and Science, you might want to read Gerald Schroeder's book --- Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible.

Go to Amazon to see a review.

Of course, the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design Movement has Jewish Scientists who support their movement.

I am not familiar with most Hindu or Buddhist Scientists and their view of Intelligent Design. I have been to India once, in the 1980's and have attended some lectures in New Delhi.

The closest people who believe in some sort of intelligence in origin of life on earth are probably Hindu Scientists such as Award winning Astrophyscist, Chandra Wickarmasinghe and Jayant Narlikar ( whose early education was at the Banaras Hindu University, India's leading astrophycist), who together with Sir Fred Hoyle, express doubt in the Big Bang model of the origin of the Universe and postulates that life on earth might have been seeded from outer space by intelligent directed panspermia ( I have heard Narlikar's lecture once when I visited India in the 1980's ).

Both of these Indians were influenced greatly by their teacher, Sir Fred Hoyle.

In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:

"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

Of course men like Richard Dawkins oppose their views ( see his book -- THE BLIND WATCHMAKER), and so, the debate goes on...
1,102 posted on 10/02/2006 3:08:47 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 919 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I didn't need to read your website, because my points were not specific, but metaphysical / philosophical.

All the same, I'll assume you are familiar with some of the facts discussed there.

Me: the hypothetical designer is not a good engineer.

You: . Is the designer primarily an engineer at all?

Primarily? Who knows? But I would say that engineering is one aspect of "intelligent" design. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, has never been justified on any rational design basis; it's simply and unambiguously a stupid design.

2. If so, was the designer acting IN that capacity when making life-forms as we know them?

If one claims that the design is intelligent, then yes, the aesthetics of engineering enter into it. Particularly using as few parts/materials as possible, not over-complicating things. Evolution predicts a Rube Goldberg sort of "design", which is what we find in the examples I cited.

3. Do the life forms as we know them accurately reflect the original designs? ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.")

Who knows? What bearing does this have on the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

a. What if the designer made life forms and walked away (semi-Deist view) and subsequent evolution has screwed stuff up?

Has no bearing on the recurrent laryngeal nerve; it's invariant across all the vertebrates.

b. What if other supernatural agents have corrupted things since the original design?

Purely idle speculation in the absence of evidence. Again, has no bearing on the routing of nerves.

c. What if the original design was for conditions far different than we have now?

See above re: the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The evolutionary explanation for its circuitous path is that in fish the heart is much further forward than it is in tetrapods. In the embryo, the nerve starts out OK, then is constrained by the topology of it and the aorta as the heart and aorta move away from the laryngeal area.

d. If the designer made life forms as an engineer, and you think present conditions reflect the environment for which they were designed, AND there was no skulduggery since then, do you know the intended purposes for the life forms as they were designed, both ultimate and proximate? Think of some of the engineering school challenges to build vehicles to get ultra-high gas mileage...I bet they'd *suck* on crash-test ratings. But they weren't trying for safety anyway. Or for another example, "Build a working suspension bridge entirely out of toothpicks" or "Design and build a working electric car for under $1000".

How about simply "connect the brain stem to the larynx"? Or, "connect in a way that won't lead to anomalies after evolution has moved things around"?

e. Are these the final designs or is the earth a workshop or proving ground where various ideas are beta tested, or prototypes made for "proof of concept" ?

More idle speculation, in the complete absence of any evidence for it.

Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.

And no, I don't consider this nitpicking. Some of the objections are a hat tip to Christian theology, since the complaint is that ID is Christian creationism in drag; if you think this, than it is only fair to at least raise an eyebrow towards other purported factors which are brought in by Christian theology. And the other objections are something most any competent project manager would consider when beginning an engineering project.

None of your apologetic says a thing about how any competent intelligence could design the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Keep in mind the nerve is a stand-in for hundreds of examples of bad design. Easy to explain in evolution, not so easy to reconcile with competence.

1,103 posted on 10/02/2006 3:50:21 PM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1031 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Then I question Wells' grasp of the concept of what constitutes evidence to the same degree and in the same way that you challenge stands2reason's grasp of the English language, and expect the same rules of what does and does not constitute a "personal attack" to apply equally.

You really don't get it. Even if you don't agree, it is still evidence. The point is he did provide evidence therefore you are not allowed to be intellectually lazy (or dishonest) and claim he provided no evidence. As for the "personal attack" rambling - it does not make sense - try again.

1,104 posted on 10/02/2006 4:30:07 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1041 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
You really don't get it. Even if you don't agree, it is still evidence. The point is he did provide evidence therefore you are not allowed to be intellectually lazy (or dishonest) and claim he provided no evidence. As for the "personal attack" rambling - it does not make sense - try again.

That he presents it as evidence does not make it so. There are objective criteria for what does and does not constitute evidence. As far as I'm concerned if it doesn't meet those criteria then it isn't evidence. Deal with it.

1,105 posted on 10/02/2006 6:10:47 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1104 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That he presents it as evidence does not make it so.

True. But just because you think it is not evidence, does not make it so.

Let's put it this way: Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

1,106 posted on 10/02/2006 6:35:54 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1105 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Let's put it this way: Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

Intellectual relativism that would make the leftiest left proud.

1,107 posted on 10/02/2006 6:45:11 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1106 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
True. But just because you think it is not evidence, does not make it so.

The concept of "evidence", and the rules about what does and does not constitute evidence were in place before I got here. What I think doesn't change it one way or the other.

Let's put it this way: Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

No it isn't, and there can be no rational basis for inquiry or debate if it is.

1,108 posted on 10/02/2006 6:50:12 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1106 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Dinnertime. Have a couple of vanities to write, too.

But I intend to reply (w/o flames...)

Cheers!

1,109 posted on 10/02/2006 7:37:20 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Beef Stroganoff and a glas of Chenin Blanc. Now I'm feeling mellow. And "Mythbusters" is playing in the background.

g_w: Is the designer primarily an engineer at all?

v_a:Primarily? Who knows? But I would say that engineering is one aspect of "intelligent" design. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, has never been justified on any rational design basis; it's simply and unambiguously a stupid design.

g_w_2: 1st misunderstanding. What I was trying to imply was that maybe the designer was not trying to engineer anything (in the sense of efficiency, elegance, etc.) but was perhaps trying aesthetic or artistic taste. According to the designer's own standards.

g_w: If so, was the designer acting IN that capacity when making life-forms as we know them?

If one claims that the design is intelligent, then yes, the aesthetics of engineering enter into it. Particularly using as few parts/materials as possible, not over-complicating things. Evolution predicts a Rube Goldberg sort of "design", which is what we find in the examples I cited.

g_w_2: You *appear* to be making a couple of assumptions here, which, though reasonable, remain arbitrary. For all you know, the designer put in elements like the recurrent laryngeal nerve as a kind of "flourish" or signature; or like the tail fins on a 1950's-era chevy. You are implicitly assuming that everything that is there, was put there with an explicit function. Supposedly intelligent designers (but here opinions may differ) also created the Edsel. :-)

And for that matter, there's always Picasso.

g_w: Do the life forms as we know them accurately reflect the original designs? ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.")

Who knows? What bearing does this have on the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

If the original design was for vastly different conditions, things which now look anomalous might have made sense at the time.

g_w:What if the designer made life forms and walked away (semi-Deist view) and subsequent evolution has screwed stuff up?

v_a:Has no bearing on the recurrent laryngeal nerve; it's invariant across all the vertebrates.

g_w_2: That depends on what point in the process the designer walked away; for example, with invertebrates.

g_w:What if other supernatural agents have corrupted things since the original design?

v_a:Purely idle speculation in the absence of evidence. Again, has no bearing on the routing of nerves.

g_w_2: No more idle speculation than assuming that an intelligent designer was necessarily guided primarily by notions of efficiency; or assuming (say) vestigial hind leg buds in seagoing mammals is a mistake, instead of a 'tip of the hat' in honor of another designer's work.

But for some reason, you appear to ignore that your assumption that an intelligent designer is motivated by efficiency and economy is ITSELF an assumption. On certain presuppositions, it is defensible; but you have no way of 'checking' those presuppositions.

g_w: What if the original design was for conditions far different than we have now?

v_a:See above re: the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The evolutionary explanation for its circuitous path is that in fish the heart is much further forward than it is in tetrapods. In the embryo, the nerve starts out OK, then is constrained by the topology of it and the aorta as the heart and aorta move away from the laryngeal area.

That raises an entirely different issue of the "ontology recapitulates philogeny" type; and an interesting observation from software engineering. Think of class inheritance. It may be that, for the sake of software re-engineering, you may "kludge" a subclass from a higher-level class, even though it involves certain inconveniences, because of certain other advantages related to disk space, not wanting to add new class libraries, etc.

What you point out about the laryngeal nerve being "evolutionary" since the heart in fish is far forward, and as the embryonic development differs from species to species, could also be taken as an economy of "design"--using a standard template for embryonic development.

Not insisting this is the case, but without getting to discuss with the designer, you won't always see why things were done.

Off-topic segue...Urban legend has it that when a Cuban pilot defected to Florida with a Russian MiG during the Cold War, the US military engineers were *astounded* at how carefully the plane had been built, apparently with the goal of making it impervious to EMP. (Vaccuum tubes etc. instead of solid-state electronics, and so on.) So this figured into US estimates of the Soviet willingness to engage in nuclear war. As it turns out, after the Cold War ended, we found out the *real* reason for the primitive electronics: the Soviet electronics industry was not able to make enough of the advanced parts to high enough tolerance to be reliable for military use. So instead, they used a brute-force approach with low-tech.

Point being, what might seem *obvious* on inspection of a design after the fact, might be an *artefact* of completely different design goals or constraints.

g_w:If the designer made life forms as an engineer, and you think present conditions reflect the environment for which they were designed, AND there was no skulduggery since then, do you know the intended purposes for the life forms as they were designed, both ultimate and proximate? Think of some of the engineering school challenges to build vehicles to get ultra-high gas mileage...I bet they'd *suck* on crash-test ratings. But they weren't trying for safety anyway. Or for another example, "Build a working suspension bridge entirely out of toothpicks" or "Design and build a working electric car for under $1000".

v_a:How about simply "connect the brain stem to the larynx"? Or, "connect in a way that won't lead to anomalies after evolution has moved things around"?

g_w_2: See above. Maybe the designer liked the fetal development sequence so much, it was decided to keep the essentials of the process, regardless of the resultant (minor) anomalies.

g_w:Are these the final designs or is the earth a workshop or proving ground where various ideas are beta tested, or prototypes made for "proof of concept" ?

v_a:More idle speculation, in the complete absence of any evidence for it.

g_w_2:Not *idle* speculation, as it presents a plausible alternative to your strawman of "if it doesn't make sense to the criteria *I* subscribe to, as an elegant solution, it CANNOT have been the result of design."

v_a: None of your apologetic says a thing about how any competent intelligence could design the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Keep in mind the nerve is a stand-in for hundreds of examples of bad design. Easy to explain in evolution, not so easy to reconcile with competence.

g_w_2: Not necessarily true. Nice swashbuckling type debate points, but you are *assuming* that your notions of compactness and elegance are the same ones the intelligent designer had in mind. Yes, it is a *reasonable* assumption, and one that can be defended as a reasonable assumption ("why would an engineer want to do it like that? it would be more elegant, economical, etc. to do it like this instead."). But it remains an assumption, until you know what trade-offs and effects the designer had in mind.

That is why I said you had been *jumping to conclusions*...

Cheers!

1,110 posted on 10/02/2006 9:53:31 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So you are allowed to post abstractions (A, A', A'', A'''. ...) but I am not?

Ok. Replace A with aardvark.

Where does the anteater show up?

1,111 posted on 10/03/2006 5:59:44 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1021 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You cannot see the relevance of the color gradient, apparently because you have been lied to about how evolution works.

Haven't we all?

Where is the equivalent of punk-eek on your spectrum?

Many E folk still say this is a valid portion of the ToE.

1,112 posted on 10/03/2006 6:01:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Nothing. Why?


1,113 posted on 10/03/2006 6:02:16 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; grey_whiskers
My fault, as I left out the tag. {Zeeba Naybah)
1,114 posted on 10/03/2006 6:05:47 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
(Just to let you know its appreciated. You've made my day in more ways than one (my first chance to discuss Kitano's work with another fan - check out the Kitano section of my FR homepage....)

Watch out!

This a prelude to having your soul removed!!

;^)

1,115 posted on 10/03/2006 6:07:47 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
People get tired of the "same old thing" from the "same old people" and resort to intellectual shortcuts.


23!

45!

11!

Sigh.... some can tell 'em, and some can't.

1,116 posted on 10/03/2006 6:09:27 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
We all sin every day...

Got a reference on this?

1,117 posted on 10/03/2006 6:10:13 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Isn't that what Foley's being accused of??


1,118 posted on 10/03/2006 6:11:17 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The Bible is a spiritual text.

But not ONLY one.

1,119 posted on 10/03/2006 6:15:50 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies]

To: js1138; freedumb2003
Oh you guys.....

STOP already!





(more, more....)

1,120 posted on 10/03/2006 6:17:28 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1092 | View Replies]

To: js1138; SirLinksalot
Not much to say here. Yockey mentions Adami on page 168 but mainly to dismiss his theory of complexity that Yockey evidently thinks is inferior to his own. It seems Yockey prefers the Kolmogorov/Chaitin algorithmic ("least description") type. I gather Yockey thinks that the latter definition of complexity fits better with the Shannon communication model.

But Adami is certainly right about the book having typo problems. As to whether the book has been adequately peer reviewed: I imagine that a highly reputable publisher like Cambridge University Press would have seen to this.

I gather the two gentlemen have strong differences of opinion. So what else is new?

1,121 posted on 10/03/2006 6:17:39 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1081 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
I think the problem with his side is that, in the end, all questions are rhetorical because all answers are known.

How WRONG you are!

(It's called FAITH ;^)

1,122 posted on 10/03/2006 6:18:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Insulting me does not demonstrate, to any degree, that your claims are correct.

However....

Insulting ME probably means I did something to deserve it.

1,123 posted on 10/03/2006 6:20:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1096 | View Replies]

To: js1138
That must be why he sent me off for an hour to find stuff he asked for, and then never responded.

I have another life....


I could live with his beliefs if he were a gentleman.

Kill the messenger?

1,124 posted on 10/03/2006 6:21:16 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1097 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

No...

I wanna touch YOUR na is hinted at in the textmessaging.


1,125 posted on 10/03/2006 6:24:19 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1118 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
No, it's called "reading and considering the evidence someone has gone throught the trouble of providing you". There is a *lot* to know in even one small branch of science that supports the SToE. I've certainly learned a great deal from the information thoughtful FReepers have posted. Yet I have not *once* seen a CR/ID-er admit that they did not know some bit of information that was provided. Transitional fossil finds or speciation events will be claimed to have never occured, and yet when evidence is provided to the contrary, is there ever an acknowledgment, or an admission of learning something new?

Does your definition of faith include ignoring physical evidence? If it does, you should at least state that from the outset! Admit that no amount of evidence will convince you rather than disingenuously claim that no evidence has been provided. What would Jesus do? I am certain he would do the honest and honorable thing.

1,126 posted on 10/03/2006 7:30:31 AM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Where is the equivalent of punk-eek on your spectrum?

The gradient is an analogy.

But it isn't a bad one. Take a look at the width of the yellow band and compare it to the width of blue or red.

The fact hat some transitions take place faster than others does not mean they take place in one step.

The "rapid" transitions of punk eek would still involve thousands, or hundreds of thousands of generations.

As for anteaters and aardvarks -- gee, maybe you've found the silver bullet. Want to bet on it as more and more genomes are decoded?

It is posible to devise a test of the TofE given current technology. For example the TofE predicts that genetic similarities between species are more likely to be related to the timing of their last common ancestor than to their place in the economy of nature. Therefore if we pick 2 groups of mammals and predict DNA similar/different then test this with gene sequencing the TofE would have to make a prediction (since any genetic finding is compatible with ID the same would not be asked of it). No tricks here, all species meet the accepted definition of mammal as the females secrete milk and they all have hair on some part of their bodies at some point in their lives. Their putative fossil ancestors meet the criteria for mammals in having 3 ossicles and a single dentary bone for a mandible. In group #1 we’ll put the spiny anteater, the banded anteater, the scaly anteater, the giant anteater and the aardvark. In the second group we’ll put the arctic fox, the giant panda, the walrus, the mink and the tiger. The TofE would have to predict that the species in group #2 would be more closely related genetically. If this would turn out not to be the case perhaps evolution would’t be falsified but it would have recieved a serious injury to one of its key hypotheses.
Source
1,127 posted on 10/03/2006 8:29:31 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I have another life....

But in it, you didn't stop posting to other threads.

1,128 posted on 10/03/2006 8:35:50 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Nothing. Why?

That was the topic of the thread.

1,129 posted on 10/03/2006 8:57:12 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1113 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The concept of "evidence", and the rules about what does and does not constitute evidence were in place before I got here.

So? Just because you don't agree does not make it magically become non-evidence - it is just evidence you don't accept. Spin all you want, evidence was presented - you just don't agree with the evidence. BTW: could you state these "rules of evidence" that you are speaking of?

1,130 posted on 10/03/2006 9:02:30 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1108 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Intellectual relativism that would make the leftiest left proud.

Please explain the relativism in my statement. Once again you are exposing your ignorance in your attempt to "get me". Relativism is a qualitative judgment - I made a quantitative statement (the only qualitative statement I made was "I don't agree with the evidence presented") You don't understand what you are talking about.

1,131 posted on 10/03/2006 9:10:51 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1107 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So? Just because you don't agree does not make it magically become non-evidence - it is just evidence you don't accept. Spin all you want, evidence was presented - you just don't agree with the evidence. BTW: could you state these "rules of evidence" that you are speaking of?

The "rules of evidence" dictate that what is presented as evidence be logically associated with the conclusions it is purported to support. There is no logical association between the Gould's quote and the conclusions Wells has drawn from it. If what he presents as "evidence" does not support his conclusions then it cannot properly be held as evidence.

If we accept your assertion that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder" and I don't see anything he's presented as evidence then you don't have any basis to establish that it is.

1,132 posted on 10/03/2006 9:22:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1130 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
We all sin every day... Got a reference on this?

Psst, psst. The Bible. Romans 3:23

1,133 posted on 10/03/2006 10:45:50 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1117 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
What would Jesus do?
 
Appeal to authority?   ;^)
 

What would Jesus SAY???
 
Matthew 19:4
  "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
 
No mention of cells or ameobas or slime...

1,134 posted on 10/03/2006 12:04:35 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1126 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Take a look at the width of the yellow band and compare it to the width of blue or red.

Which are different for every individual.

(Color blindness)

1,135 posted on 10/03/2006 12:06:07 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Therefore if we pick 2 groups of mammals and predict DNA similar/different then test this with gene sequencing the TofE would have to make a prediction (since any genetic finding is compatible with ID the same would not be asked of it).

Yessir; I sure like that animal; I think I'll make some more almost like it.

--GOD

1,136 posted on 10/03/2006 12:08:13 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: js1138
But in it, you didn't stop posting to other threads.

My multi-tasker must have malfunctioned.

1,137 posted on 10/03/2006 12:09:00 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1128 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Romans 3: 23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


HMMmmm... where is the DAILY part??


1,138 posted on 10/03/2006 12:11:08 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1133 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If we accept your assertion that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder" and I don't see anything he's presented as evidence then you don't have any basis to establish that it is.

So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

1,139 posted on 10/03/2006 2:28:51 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

Nor does it revolve around Mr. Wells. If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence, whether you and Mr. Wells choose to believe that it exists or not.

When you declared that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", you made it purely subjective. There is no longer any discernible "right" answer to whether there is evidence or not. I don't agree with this, but it appears to be the only definition of "evidence" you will accept, so there you have it.

1,140 posted on 10/03/2006 2:44:38 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
HMMmmm... where is the DAILY part??

Show me someone who doesn't have an sinful thought once a day. Also, how does a baby sin? Read Psalm 51 and then tell me that you and every human being doesn't sin every day.

1,141 posted on 10/03/2006 3:16:51 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence

That is not what that statement means - it is a qualitative statement - we are debating a quantitative statement from you ("there is no evidence")

"in the eyes of the beholder" means qualitative judgment varies from person to person - not quantitative judgment as you are trying to argue.

1,142 posted on 10/03/2006 3:19:01 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1140 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

“I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing,” Rom. 7:18. Positively, man is inclined only to evil: “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth,” Gen. 8:21. Whatever we desire, think, speak, or do, of ourselves, by the prompting of our own original nature, is “only evil continually,” Gen. 6:5. “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” Rom. 3:12. “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not,” Eccles. 7:20.


1,143 posted on 10/03/2006 3:21:17 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
"in the eyes of the beholder" means qualitative judgment varies from person to person - not quantitative judgment as you are trying to argue.

I still see nothing there that has the qualities I associate with "evidence". The assesment is based on a qualitative judgement.

1,144 posted on 10/03/2006 3:25:02 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1142 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I still see nothing there that has the qualities I associate with "evidence". The assesment is based on a qualitative judgement.

you just don't get it...

You are making a quantitative judgment and are trying to support it with qualitative statements. I am guessing you don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative.

1,145 posted on 10/03/2006 3:32:55 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
you just don't get it...

Wanna bet?

You are making a quantitative judgment and are trying to support it with qualitative statements. I am guessing you don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative.

"Existence" is a quality, so is "non-existence". The evidence is non-existent. Is that better?

1,146 posted on 10/03/2006 3:35:44 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1145 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Existence" is a quality, so is "non-existence". The evidence is non-existent. Is that better?

No. The evidence clearly exists, you just don't accept it. Your quantitative statement ("there is no evidence") is clearly false and your opinion of the evidence ("non-existence") is a qualitative statement.

1,147 posted on 10/03/2006 6:17:18 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
No. The evidence clearly exists, you just don't accept it. Your quantitative statement ("there is no evidence") is clearly false and your opinion of the evidence ("non-existence") is a qualitative statement.

You refused to accept anything but a "qualitative statement", so I gave you one. Apparently you needed that in order to dismiss it.

I will amend my "qualitative" statement about the evidence to something that will give you the implicit agreement that it exists that you want so badly.

The evidence is fraudulent.

1,148 posted on 10/03/2006 7:52:34 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1147 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

3 things for ME to look at to prove YOUR assertion?

Sorry, but that's YOUR responsibility.


1,149 posted on 10/04/2006 5:19:54 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Still no 'daily' ;^)


1,150 posted on 10/04/2006 5:20:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,195 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