Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution at Knoxville Conference
KNOXVILLE – What is intelligent design and what scientific evidence supports it? Why is it so controversial? How does it differ from Darwin’s theory of evolution? Is there a purpose to the universe? What new scientific facts are turning evolutionary theories upside down? This one-day conference will answer these and other intriguing questions.
The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design is a hot topic at universities and research institutions around the world, and is now the focus of a day-long conference called Darwin vs. Design, coming to the Knoxville Convention Center on March 24th.
Join The New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists and experts at the Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explain the evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design Saturday, March 24th.
Featured speakers include:
-Lee Strobel, journalist and bestselling author of The Case for a Creator.
-Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at Discovery Institute, and co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
-Dr. Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist and author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and CSC senior fellow
-Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, and CSC senior fellow
Attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and philosophers whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thinking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics and our culture.
The conference is $55 for General Admission and $5 for Students and teachers (with valid school ID at time of admission). Advance purchase group rates are also available by contacting conferences@discovery.org. Purchase tickets online at www.ticketweb.com (use key word Darwin). For more information visit our website at www.darwinvsdesign.com.
Fallacy of appeal to spite, but a good one.
"What's falsifiable about evolution?"
Nothing. It's a historical science that starts with a fact (life came into existence) and throws hypotheses out until there is a "smoking gun" that makes one hypothesis the accepted one. Falsifiability is limited to experimental sciences.
The problem with evolution is that "smoking guns" are hard to come by since these are living creatures, and there's an aversion to attributing anything to the supernatural in science.
Fallacy of appeal to middle ground combined with a fallacy of ridicule; but again, very, very good.
> What's falsifiable about evolution?
Evolution in what sense?
There's the observed fact of evolution, that the frequency of alleles in a population drifts with time. Obviously, that could be falsified by finding a population whose allele frequency was constant across many generations, despite environmental pressures. It's about as likely to happen as dropping an apple and watching it float into space.
But I suspect your question is more about either so-called "macroevolution", common descent or abiogenesis. It should be pointed out that only the first two relate to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a seperate field all together. All of these involve testable hypotheses, too, though.
So it can never be proven or disproven but it is science? LOL
> Evolution does not explain the beginning of everything
> and that is why I believe it does not explain away God or
> is "anti-Christian".
Absolutely spot on. The theory of evolution explains how life changes. It even explains the diversity of forms of life on the planet today (though if you believe in miracles, obviously nothing would have prevented God from tinkering from time to time). It doesn't explain how life began, nor was it meant to.
Fallacy of begging the question.
My question is, how could anyone ever falsify the theory of evolution? To focus in a little, how could one falsify the idea that some primate evolved into man?
Fallacy of confusing cause and effect.
The "E" folks get GRANTS to fund THEIR 'research'!
> Fallacy of begging the question.
Hardly. His question was not specific enough, and I was helping him clarify it.
The parallel question: "What is falsifiable about gravity?" demonstrates the problem.
They buy a Barbra Striesand concert ticket?
Evolution makes predictions about what type of fossils will be found in different layers. They then look in those layers. If they found a fossilized house cat (or anything like that) among the dinosaurs in undisturbed rock evolution would be disproven.
Further finding anything that truly was 'irreducibly complex' would also disprove evolution. Note for something to be 'irreducibly complex' we have to understand it. Because we don't understand something (yet) doesn't make it 'irreducibly complex'.
Now it's your turn. What would falsify ID? What would falsify YEC?
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
OBviously, you've missed Boys from Brazil
with Gregory Peck!
(Why didn't Albert Einstein's super smart genes get passed on?)
Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:
Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were no
one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.If
Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the
one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.Are we to believe that the
one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
Acts 17:24-26 24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Was LUKE wrong about this? 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Timothy 2:13
If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word?? |
NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
> To focus in a little, how could one falsify the idea that
> some primate evolved into man?
Morphological dissimilarities in homo sapiens would obviously rule that possibility out, if they existed.
Finding australopithecus or other transitional fossils in , North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.
Finding a homo erectus or sapiens skull older than some of the earlier transitional forms.
Finding that the current rate of change of the human genome is too small to account for the magnitude of the differences between humans and chimps since the time of the proposed common ancestor.
Finding a common pseudo-gene between humans and old world monkeys that is not shared by gorillas and chimpanzees.
There are many predictions which common descent requires a priori that can be tested.
Are there any potential findings that could so disqualify ID? No, because whatever is found, people will just wave their hands and say "goddidit".
ping
"But someone may ask: "Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, 'who stretches out heaven like a skin?' " Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions."
St. Augustine
On the Literal Meaning of Genesis
It must be hell to be you.
All you ever contribute is a stream of bitterness, hatred, and irrational humanism. Did you ever have a teddy bear?
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.