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

Skip to comments.

Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post
The New York Times ^ | May 19, 2007 | CORNELIA DEAN

Posted on 05/23/2007 8:19:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 451-474 next last
To: js1138

[Evolution does not work toward specified goals. Are you asserting that this is true of the Designer?]

Nope- I’m not stating that at all- I simply said, if Design is true, and if it’s true on all levels, and results in assemblies of complex designs at higher levels, then one of two things is also true, either God is the designer, or another natural element is the designer, and it is the responsibility of science to explain how design could happen in a random fashion. That’s all. Students deserve to have science in it’s entirety taught, and a huge part of hte scientific mystery is the design and specified complexities we see. One hypothesis from the Evo side on design is that an accumulation of small mutational changes within species can account for design and for complexities- however, this is a very vague statement with nothing but annectotal evidences to prop it up somewhat.

The problem with design and specific complexity for the evo side is that these design elements would have had to assemble very quickly and in a linear fashion with an end result in mind, if you will. The multitude of non specific mutational mistakes would have had to have been ‘filtered’ if you will, while the assembly took place. The further problem for the evo hypothesis is that design is seen at every level and exhibits signs of an intelligence when it comes to everythign working together seemlessly. Natural explanations attempt to declare that mistakes just kept happening until the right combinations took over for the benifit of a species. That’s a powerful lot of mistakes just to get at even a few successes, and we simply do not find the remains of all the mistakes that must have happened, nor do we see partially developed systems en mass as we should in the fossil records. There are a few tantilizing annomylies in the records for sure, but htese are open to much hypothetical speculations and subjective interpretations.


151 posted on 05/26/2007 9:36:37 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

[and since we all have opinions, which may differ from yours, so what?]

So what? Coyote has declared ad nauseum that anyone that doesn’t believe in evolution and proposes design is not a science fan but an apologist- that’s not a ‘so what’ statement- that’s an accusation that demands rebuttle. That’s ‘so what’!


152 posted on 05/26/2007 9:40:29 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Well, I see that you are hopeful, that someone will offer a strong rebuttal to Coyoteman...so far, I have not seen one...and I am not hopeful of seeing one in the future...I will be out for a few hours, but am certainly waiting to see such a strong rebuttal forthcoming, upon my return...tho, I doubt such a strong rebuttal will be found...not one that makes any sense anyway...but do try..


153 posted on 05/26/2007 9:46:54 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

[and since we all have opinions, which may differ from yours, so what?]

You try to propose that because everyone has an opinion, and all differ, that whatever someone’s opinion, is of no real consequence in the overall big picture, but the interpretation to your proposal is this ‘Because we all have different opinions, then we, the evos, can belittle the opposition, and if anyone defends their position, then we, the evos, will jump on that person further belittling them’ which is what you and Coyoteman have been doing in this and other threads. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen Coyoteman post statements that flat out deny that ID has any scientific merrit, and insinuationg that anyone that has an ID opinion is nothign but an ignorant apologist who believes in fairy tailes and old ‘myths’ from a dusty old man written book. Arguments like that are quite frankly friggin childish and imature!


154 posted on 05/26/2007 9:47:38 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: caffe; andysandmikesmom; Coyoteman
I don’t know what area of the country you, your friends or coyote but a graduate degree usually means a MASTERS and a PHD is called a PHD or doctoral program. I know many people, most in my family, who have PhD’s so if you want to pull some elitist attitude with me, your already DOA.

Coyoteman and AAMM are both right about graduate school. A Masters takes about 2 years, but a PhD takes at least four in the U.S and Canada. And that is after completing relevant undergraduate studies. An 'average' student would likely fail most graduate programs sine a 'C' in grad school is the equivalent of an undergraduate 'F' and raises serious concerns that the student is not suited for an advanced degree. I had a good thesis advisor would boot your from the PhD program if you didn't finish in about 4 years. A Master or PhD is not something awarded for simply participating, unless you family members mailed in their check for $50.00 and had one mailed back to them a week later.

The term "graduate degree" is a very loose, generic term and should be avoided. The specific title of the degree should be used since different schools and institutions have different nomenclature, particularly when you include international schools.

155 posted on 05/26/2007 9:59:03 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Actually I’m not even following the argument about the social concerns in society that they are having, I have no interest in hypotheticals about society. Coyoteman started the ball rolling with his typical predictable inflamatory and unfounded ‘ID is anti-science’ crap statements, and people responded- You state that you haven’t seen any worthy response to that? I have yet to see any evidence from him other than “ID has a statement of faith- therefor, they can’t be science oriented and conduct actual science”- Brilliant! He offers NO other evidence that ID doesn’t conduct science, but wields that bat as though it were the rod of condemnation that renders everythign other than evolution hypothesis useless. If that’s all He’s got, and if that’s what folks concider brilliant rebuttle to ID science, then it makes one wonder just how objective and honest a poster is. Wielding that bat only goes to prove how dedicated to biased oppression, and how angrilly bitter against the opposition the bat wielder really is. It is a position that ironically is antithetical to true objective science itself. It is more becomming of a highschool bickering contest than it is of a higher learned person who should be secure enough in their position that they don’t have to repeatedly attack the opposition with nonsense ad hominem attacks.

In case there’s any confusion about ad hominem- here’s the defintiion:

ad ho·mi·nem

–adjective 1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

There is plenty of intellectual reasoning in ID, but the opposition is simply unwilling to ceede any ground based simply on nothing more than prejudices. Sorry, but “ID is nothing but apologetics’ is nothing but a biased blanket statement that has no merrit. A statement like that does nothign to cover up the facts that ID does indeed have sound science.


156 posted on 05/26/2007 10:21:25 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Degrees are fine, but degrees don’t nullify bias and pettiness and non-objectivity in the person holding degrees. A true practicioner of science who is objective will argue their point while confessing hte problems with their points, and listen objectively to counter points and give credit where credit is due and warrented instead of brushing it aside with the wave of a biased hand as though meaningless.

I’ve seen arguments for example, here on FR, about the issue of Radio Halos, and seen statements that because objections were rasied to the findings, that the matter was settled and the insinuations fly that Gish was therefore an idiot and charlatan who beleives in nonsense fairy tales. But the fact of hte matter is that Gishs’ findings and hypothesis have stood up to peer review criticisms for 15 years now, and no good rebuttle has been able to undermine hypothesis and settle the matter. The true objective scientists who objectively criticise the findings, do so in a proffesional manner, and welcome counter arguments that raise valid issues with the points being made. This is true science in action- not some petty biased science on display in hopes of silencing the opposition through ridicule and pressure tactics as soem posters here with degrees continuously engage in. Again, degrees are swell- but, again, it means little when pettiness clouds the ability to be objective which, objectivity is an absolute must if pure science is the objective.


157 posted on 05/26/2007 10:43:13 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Nope- I’m not stating that at all- I simply said, if Design is true, and if it’s true on all levels, and results in assemblies of complex designs at higher levels, then one of two things is also true, either God is the designer, or another natural element is the designer, and it is the responsibility of science to explain how design could happen in a random fashion.

Of course it's true that science is obligated to show how "design" happens through natural processes. I suggest you start with the Origin of Species and work your way through the half century and a half of biology. when you can demonstrate that you understand how it works, come back and we'll talk.

158 posted on 05/26/2007 1:08:23 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

Try this: “We insist you cannot publicly disagree with the belief of naturalism while on state grounds.”

No creationist is “insisting” that the natural science community “do” the supernatural.

The scientific community is already in trouble for not “doing” the supernatural; sooner or later, they have to.


159 posted on 05/26/2007 2:27:01 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Don't go see Pirates 3! www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1839498/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The scientific community is already in trouble for not “doing” the supernatural; sooner or later, they have to.

Is this what the theocrats think? That they are going to take over and force science to adhere to their particular religious beliefs?

160 posted on 05/26/2007 3:18:39 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

A Theocrat?


No, I'm referring to the scientific impossibilities that clash with evolution the further back it goes. (IE, living matter coming from non-living matter, etc.)Yes, I KNOW you insist that evolution doesn't cover the origins of life, but it still operates on that assumption.
161 posted on 05/26/2007 3:47:45 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Don't go see Pirates 3! www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1839498/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

If you ever obtain a functioning brain, you can talk to me.


162 posted on 05/26/2007 4:14:27 PM PDT by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: doc30

I’m quite aware of the difference between the average amount of time it takes to earn a Masters degree and the amount of time it takes to earn a PhD. We have quite a few PhD’s in my family. I have two undergraduate degrees and have completed half of a Masters. This was not my issue;it was Coyoteman who used the term “graduate degree” in a loose and generic way and I logically thought he was referring to a Masters degree. Most people I know if studying towards a PhD describe themselves as in a Doctoral program (not a Graduate program).
Thank you for your input and I appreciate your civil approach to a rather pointless debate.


163 posted on 05/26/2007 4:25:49 PM PDT by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: caffe
This was not my issue;it was Coyoteman who used the term “graduate degree” in a loose and generic way and I logically thought he was referring to a Masters degree. Most people I know if studying towards a PhD describe themselves as in a Doctoral program (not a Graduate program).

Wrong. I just checked the thread, and this post is my first to use either "degree" or "graduate" in any way. You were the first to use "graduate degree" (post# 87).

That was in response to my post #59 which stated,

Yes, but that's Dr. Idiot to you, son.

Half my six years in grad school were spent studying evolution and closely related subjects.

You've been on a roll ever since.
164 posted on 05/26/2007 4:40:09 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“half my six years in grad school” makes my point not yours!

I might add, if you spend half of your six years in “grad school” “studying evolution and closely related subjects,” you wasted alot of time and money on junk “science.”


165 posted on 05/26/2007 4:53:34 PM PDT by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

How far has Kansas education progressed in the past 112 years? Could a typical Kansas 8th grader pass the following exam?

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, KS. USA.
It was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley
Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS and reprinted by the
Salina Journal.

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS - 1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu., deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per m?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per are, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates:
1607
1620
1800
1849
1865

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret ‘u’.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final ‘e’. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

We are all concerned about evolutionary theory while we raise a generation of students that struggles with the differences between your, you’re, yours, and you all’s.


166 posted on 05/26/2007 5:38:42 PM PDT by Qout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: js1138

lol - we’re talking about whether or not ID should be taught in schools, arguing abotu whether or not ID is science, and you’re telling me I have to completely understand design in order to have a discussion about design? Setting hte bar kinda high for others aint we? I simply said- Evo science has the burden of showing how design coems from nature if that’s their viewpoint on the matter- Design is real, it’s present in everythign living, and as such, it’s an important and huge issue that needs addressing- I didn’t even state that evo science has to completely explain design- just show- scientifically, how design could arise through random mutational forces. I’m here now, I’m talking about it, and my mommie says I don’t have to be able to fully explain design in order to discuss the parts I do understand and can observe- so there :b


167 posted on 05/26/2007 11:15:59 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Yes, cake! I am going to make a fresh apple/walnut cake. Please make my coffee strong and black. All this redundant argument about evolution makes me hungry!

I, personally, think enough creditable scientists have stuck enough holes in evolution to reduce it once again to theory. Darwinism was embraced so heartily in the first place by people who wanted to make God irrelevant and have tried to make it into the little engine who could. Alas, toot-toot, it just hasn’t made it over the hill yet.

And, no, all you people that want directions to scientific proof, go find your own. I found mine and am perfectly satisfied to take a coffe/cake break.

vaudine


168 posted on 05/26/2007 11:41:05 PM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
...and you’re telling me I have to completely understand design in order to have a discussion about design?

You're the one challenging the mainstream. Third graders are seldom taken seriously when challenging the answers to arithmetic problems.

Your problem is not proving the existence of design. Your problem is presenting an alternative history. Science does not stop when it finds and interesting object. It asks how it got that way.

Asserting that some unknown entity having unknown capabilities and unknown limitations did some unknown thing(s) at some unknown time(s) is not a testable or researchable hypothesis. If an idea doesn't generate questions that can be answered by research, it isn't science.

169 posted on 05/27/2007 8:09:28 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

Thank you so much for your birthday wishes, Marysecretary!


170 posted on 05/27/2007 8:42:43 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[Asserting that some unknown entity having unknown capabilities and unknown limitations did some unknown thing(s) at some unknown time(s) is not a testable or researchable hypothesis. If an idea doesn’t generate questions that can be answered by research, it isn’t science.]

Tyhank you for making my case- Evolution answers NO questions about how it is biologically possible to do the biologically impossible- how life came from non life- if you can’t establish how life began from non life, how the life process cleared the impossible biological hurdles as it suppoosedly evolved, then you are in essence teaching NON science according to your little set of requirements for science there.

Ah, but you’ll argue that “science of evolution doesn’t deal with aBIOgenisis” Which is a major cop out- you demand that ID explain how God created everything, yet you don’t feel obligated to have to explain how life came from non life, or how it cleared the impossible barriers all along the evolutionary ladder. ID studies design, ID studies how design works, ID tests how design functions- ALL of htis IS science. Oh, and by the way, A student has written a thesis on how light could be created by sound that presurized bubbles in water, and before you scoff at the idea- the term is sonoluminscence- his thesis is making quite a stir in the science realm. I’ve lost the link now, but his name is Samuel J Hunt if you care to check it out. No testable science Eh?

[Your problem is not proving the existence of design.]

Again, you’re missing the point here- ID, or even Evo science doesn’t have to prove the existence of design- that has already been proven and plain for anyoen to see- what evo science has to do now that design is a universally accepted fact is to show how nature could create design and specific complexities

[Third graders are seldom taken seriously when challenging the answers to arithmetic problems]

Ah but 4’th graders understand that the evolution hypothesis is NOT a law akin to the laws of mathematics! and they DO understand that challenging the serious problems with the evo hypothesis is a way to more fully and honestly understand TRUE science!. You act as if evo science were an imutable law- it’s not!


171 posted on 05/27/2007 10:04:48 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: caffe

Since you obviously dont know what you are talking about at all, my very well functioning brain tells me, that even trying to talk to you, is a worthless exercise... ...but you are very amusing, and worth a lot of laughs..thanks for the humor, tho I am sure you did not intend it as such..so I certainly will continue to read all your other posts, and see what other great chuckles I can get out of them...bye bye...


172 posted on 05/27/2007 1:07:25 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Nothing you have said here, is new or any different from what you have said in the past...you and I have exchanged postings before, and I see nothing new or different or substantive in your latest post...last time we agreed that we were at an end of the discussion, that we had taken things as far as they could go, and neither one of us felt going any futher would be of any use....

We should have just stuck to that, because the very same thing is obvious here....I see nothing new, or interesting or different, or of any substance coming from you since the last time we posted to each other...so be it...


173 posted on 05/27/2007 1:13:36 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

You are sooo welcome. Hope you had a nice day. You do deserve it you know...


174 posted on 05/27/2007 2:33:34 PM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"No creationist is “insisting” that the natural science community “do” the supernatural."

Certain public school boards (Dover, PA for one), insisting that creationism/ID be presented in science classes, perfectly well is "creationists insisting that the natural science community do the supernatural."

Creationists can "publicly disagree with the belief of naturalism" all day on all kinds of state grounds, state parks for example. I've never heard of a requirement to agree about any scientific subject as being necessary for admission to state parks. Sometimes they do want some parking fee.

The natural world exists, regardless of what people "believe" about it. And it's properly a subject to be studied, including in public schools. Introducing sectarian religious beliefs about the supernatural, or supposed interactions between the supernatural and the natural, in public schools would constitute Establishing government-funded and government-regulated religion. No thanks.

Finally, people who use the tactic of trying to inspire fear to try to goad others into doing or claiming to believe a particular thing are called terrorists. Terrorists are bad, mmkay? The God I believe in doesn't need to bother terrorizing me with fears of hellfire to get me to believe in Him. His brilliant creations, including the process of evolution, are more than enough. A supernatural entity, on the other hand, who sought to terrorize people with threats of eternal post-mortem, suffering simply for not accepting a particular literalist interpretation of a few chapters of one book, I would label a devil.
175 posted on 05/27/2007 4:02:52 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
"...if Design is true ... it is the responsibility of science to explain how design could happen in a random fashion..."

No. We've never seen the slightest evidence for "Design." It's an entirely superfluous hypothesis. The law of parsimony (Occam's Razor) eliminates unnecessary hypotheses.

I'd be amazed by the lazyness of people who dreamed up unnecessary hypotheses and then tried to pawn off the burden of working with them onto others, if I took them for sincere. But it's obvious that the recently invented "Design" hypothesis was simply a subterfuge for the same old Creationism. The Dover PA case amply proved that.

"...an accumulation of small mutational changes..."

No. There can also be large mutational changes, such as brought about by changes to control regions of an organism's DNA, rather than the protein-coding sequences. This is how organisms which share so much of their DNA in common can still be very different species.

"...powerful lot of mistakes..."

The vast majority of which do not survive past the two-cell stage in multicellular creatures. So there's no mystery why we don't find them. They don't grow up and die. They die before they get bigger than microscopic.

"Design" is yesterday's con. It's already been so discredited, by the Dover case and elsewhere, that in order to get anywhere in the future, Creationists will have to change the name again and think up a new con strategy. Rename the "Discovery Institute," rename the "Thomas More Law Center," rename all the other front groups for Creationism.

My advice would be, use the same strategy as what the leftists used to take over the colleges: long march through the institutions. You'll need hundreds of kids who've been taught to believe in Creationism to go through good universities all the way through Ph.D.'s, and become professors of evolutionary biology, and get promoted to tenured positions at good universities. Once they've got tenure, then they can "come out" as Creationists (those you haven't lost on the way). And at that point, they'll need some actual evidence on their side, some reproduceable mechanism to point to that can link the supernatural with the natural. So pick smart recruits for this task. You're not going to overturn evolutionary biology with a Behe. You'll need one or more Newton-class or Einstein-class geniuses.

My guess is, it won't happen in the next one or two billion years. Trying to produce and demonstrate the link between the supernatural and the natural to show that God tinkers with evolution is like trying to demonstrate the physical processes that enable Ouija boards to provide low-bandwidth communications channels between the living and the dead. (Who knows? Could be the same mechanism.)

But, the unlikelyness of such explanations being found does not prevent people calling in to Art Bell or George Noory, completely convinced that their Ouija board works.
176 posted on 05/27/2007 4:53:15 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
"Evolution answers NO questions about ... how life came from non life..."

You're right about that part. First, I doubt anybody ever said it did. Darwin certainly didn't. He never mentioned or speculated on how life first arose. After all, it's not the subject of evolution, so why would he?

The issue you're talking about here is the abiogenic origin of life. There are an assortment of speculative theories and experiments about it, none conclusive. That's part of why there's so much interest in sending probes to Mars and the moons of Jupiter and other planets to look for microscopic life, to see if it's related to Earth life (indicating an origin of life from non-life somewhere out in the universe), or if it's completely unrelated, which would indicate that life arises independently wherever physical conditions allow it. Right now even those questions are open.

But that's not a "problem" for evolution. It's absurd to conflate the two subjects. Let alone claim that lack of knowledge about one somehow invalidates the other. It's like claiming that our (so far) difficulties building detectors sensitive enough to measure gravity waves somehow means that all of organic chemistry (or some other unrelated subject) is "wrong." It's obviously nonsense, whether caused by honest misunderstanding, or by deliberate strategy to try to cause confusion in the uneducated by changing the subject in mid-argument. Either way, it's nonsense.
177 posted on 05/27/2007 5:10:39 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

I would agree that you and I , at the very least, are intellectually incompatible.


178 posted on 05/27/2007 7:28:50 PM PDT by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: omnivore; andysandmikesmom

Well now wait a minute- The evo arguers demand ID explain how God brought abotu life, but yet the evos are exempt from explaining their problem riddled hypothesis about evolution as arising from life from non life? Lol- yeah- ok- You absolutely missed the point I was making- The evo arguers state that a lack of knowledge about creation by the ID side renders their studies of science void- and as I said before, this is blatant hypocrisy.

[No. We’ve never seen the slightest evidence for “Design.”]

Wowsers- yeah sure- no evidence of design.

[No. There can also be large mutational changes, such as brought about by changes to control regions of an organism’s DNA, rather than the protein-coding sequences.]

Yup- the fossil record is just chock full of those large species transforming mutations. Sorry- but the hypothesis that the evo side has had to come up with out of necessity is one of small gradual mutations that somehow hung onto useless gene mistakes while other useless gene mistakes somehow beat all odds and worked with the previous gene mistakes until eventually complete complex organs and systems were fully fuinctional.

[”Design” is yesterday’s con. It’s already been so discredited, by the Dover case and elsewhere,]

Lol- ok- thank you for playing- I thought you had somethign important to state about honest science- but aparently not. The dover case- lol good one! You apparently know nothing about ID or what they propose- they aren’t interested in who or what the designer is (While it’s true some in the movement have their own personal beliefs - ID is about design and intelligence, and contrary to yourt hand waving dismissals, it hasn’t been ‘thoroughly refuted- not even close-)

post 173: Nothing new eh? Yup your right- because nothing new needs to be stated when confronted with the same lame inflamatory substance void remarks about ID made by some posters. No sense goign to great lengths when the opposition is so biased they can’t see the science in front of their faces.


179 posted on 05/27/2007 7:34:19 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

[But it’s obvious that the recently invented “Design” hypothesis was simply a subterfuge for the same old Creationism. The Dover PA case amply proved that.]

That’s a BS ad hominem attack and you know it, and no matter how many times you make that statement, it won’t change the facts- ID isn’t about creationism- had you looked passed your bias, you’d have seen that and could have avoided stating a lie.

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Design can be and has been shown in depth with scientific observation and testing.

Let me ask you something- an evolutionist that believes life came from advanced alien races- would his own PERSONAL belief render his scientific observations and valuable contributions to science invalid? Suppose he and his fellow group members all signed a statement of faith that they believe aliens started life here on earth through the process of eovlution? No? Then why do you and others automatically dismiss ID for the very same reasons? PERSONAL beliefs? Their sicence stands on it’s own merrit, and no amount of rediculous ad hominem attacks will undo the validity of their science. Try as you might. “Design has already been refutted” lol- good one!


180 posted on 05/27/2007 7:48:39 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

For example?

Sorry, to deep for you. No sense directing you to a site that is to profound. Don’t want you getting brain freeze.


181 posted on 05/27/2007 8:06:53 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Evolution answers NO questions about how it is biologically possible to do the biologically impossible- how life came from non life- if you can’t establish how life began from non life, how the life process cleared the impossible biological hurdles as it suppoosedly evolved,

Nor has evolution ever claimed to explain the origin of life, and never has made that claim. that is why I suggested you do some reading.

182 posted on 05/27/2007 8:19:41 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
"...arising from life from non life..." [sic]

Sorry, the abiogenic origin of life has nothing to do with subsequent evolution, which is about how species evolve from other species. I can't tell, from the way you write, whether your confusion is genuine or a put-on. Some people are confused on this point due to bad education or no education on it, because so many schools are afraid to teach it properly. Then there are those who have been mis-educated due to religious indoctrination. Some other people, who do understand the difference, deliberately conflate the two, so as to perpetuate this confusion in others, and delude them. That is mischief.

"...no evidence of design..."

Nope. Zero.

"... fossil record is just chock full of those large species transforming mutations. Sorry- but the hypothesis that the evo side has had to come up with out of necessity is one of small gradual mutations ..."

No. There are small mutations of course. But there are also big jumps, speciation events. "Transitional forms" are unnecessary for evolution, so looking for them is a fool's errand. Any population of organisms could potentially be part of a chain of transition between ancestors in one species and descendants of another. There are plenty of books that explain this. Try starting with Sudden Origins, by Jeffrey Schwartz. Here's the blurb from Amazon:

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com

Despite the title, Darwin's Origin of Species doesn't really explain how new species are born. Scientists have been struggling with that thorny problem ever since its publication, and the recent revolution in molecular biology has turned up great piles of new evidence. Anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz takes a close look at this evidence, as well as the more traditional paleontological material, in Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. He claims that the tide is turning in favor of "punctuated equilibrium"--the theory that species typically remain static for great lengths of time and then experience brief spurts of accelerated change--thanks in no small part to the discovery of homeobox genes.

These remarkable structures are the genetic equivalent of the proverbial butterfly wings that cause hurricanes halfway around the world--small changes can produce enormous effects. Homeobox genes regulate development and are remarkable similar between species and even between phyla--you share some with fruit flies, for example. By turning our attention toward embryology and development, Schwartz shows us that fossils can't tell the whole story, since much of it lies within the womb. He covers a lot of ground and stretches the reader's intellectual muscles; the scope of Sudden Origins and the greater understanding of Darwin's problem make the challenge well worth it. --Rob Lightner --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.


Another good book that covers speciation although in less detail is The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins.

Here's an example of how it works. Grizzly bears and Polar bears are considered two species. They had a common ancestor. They can still interbreed, it's rare but they sometimes do, and produce hybridized offspring. But if the two species are separated by environmental conditions long enough, they will undergo enough genetic drift to lose the ability to interbreed. They'll be even farther separated genetically. Their ancestors were once one species. They're presently two species that can hybridize. Eventually they'll be two species that can't hybridize. At no point will there appear any "transitional" bears that look freakish. If we were to dig up the bones of their common ancestor species, bones of either species now, bones of either species in the future, or bones of any of the hybrid offspring, each individual would look like a perfectly normal bear. Because they would be. And this process goes on all around us, all the time, with all sorts of species. Check Dawkins' book, he has plenty of examples. That is why statements about a lack of examples of "transitional forms" are nonsense. People who go on about the supposed "lack of transitional examples" in the fossil record identify themselves, by such statements, as people who haven't bothered learning anything about evolution.

"...The dover case- lol good one! You apparently know nothing about ID or what they propose- they aren’t interested in who or what the designer is ..."

No. We've completely got their number. They're con artists, who invented a new facade to prop up in front of Creationism, after Creationism lost in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it constituted Establishment of religion to put religious/supernatural beliefs in public school classes. The "ID" movement proposes to stare at the living world in gobsmacked amazement and declare that they can't possibly understand how it works or got that way, and then attribute what they "can't explain naturally" to a series of miraculous divine interventions, which are unphysical explanations. But all scientific studies begin with physical phenomena, and seek to find natural explanations for them. "ID" isn't a science, it's a fraud masquerading as a science. It's been exposed as such, when its purveyors actually had to show up in court and try to defend it. It fell apart. They're nothing but small-time con artists. Instead of the carnival circuit, they work churches.
183 posted on 05/27/2007 8:46:50 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
"ID" isn't a science, it's a fraud masquerading as a science.


What is intelligent design?

It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.

Bruce Bower, Science News, vol. 168 (Nos 26 & 27), 2006, p. 414.


184 posted on 05/27/2007 9:43:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: vaudine

Thank you so much for your insights and testimony! I’d love to taste your apple/walnut cake!!!


185 posted on 05/27/2007 9:45:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

Nor is ID connected with creation-Some people are confused on this point due to bad education or no education on it, because so many schools are afraid to teach it properly. Then there are those who have been mis-educated due to religious indoctrination about evolution. Some other people, who do understand the difference, deliberately conflate the two, so as to perpetuate this confusion in others, and delude them. That is mischief.

so what’s your point?

[”Transitional forms”]

Hahahaha- yup- ok- now I’ve heard everything. Puctuated equllibrium- lol Egads- buh bye! The rest of your post- wow-Wow, wow. No wonder you think there isn’t any evidence of design lol

[No. We’ve completely got their number. They’re con artists,]

The only ones playing the con game were the judge who didn’t follow the law during the trial because of his extreme bias and those who propose that there won’t be any transitional species lol-


186 posted on 05/27/2007 11:14:37 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: js1138

dude- evolution can’t even explain how life got from lower life forms AFTER abiogenisis- how it cleared those impossible hurdles- Yet you apparently demand that ID, which isn’t even designed to explain creation, explain how God created or else they are nothign but psuedoscientst.

ID is the science of design- even intelligent design- it has absolutely ZERO burden of proof for explaining creation. Not sure what you don’t get about that?


187 posted on 05/27/2007 11:19:19 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
dude- evolution can’t even explain how life got from lower life forms AFTER abiogenisis-

If, by explain, you mean list every change in molecular detail, you are correct. But it does provide a framework for research, one that is compatible with new findings as they are discovered. What separates science from ID is the ability to suggest research.

By the way, if you want to project an image as someone smart enough to overthrow hundreds of years of science, learn to spell abiogenesis. I know we all make typos, but not all of us are trying to appear smarter than all the biologists in the world. Not to mention, it's kind of amusing to see someone defending a religious perspective who can't spell "Genisis." It suggests you don't know the meaning or origin of the word.

188 posted on 05/28/2007 5:55:22 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: js1138; omnivore

ah- the old spelling=intelligence insult- how cute. If I gave a crap about taking the time to check spelling, I’d care an iota or two about what you said- but sorry- not anal enough to give a fig. I spent years spelling htigns right- taking hte time to edit my writings, and heck-0 even worked as school paper editor believe it or not- but now I really- honestly, could care less about obsessing about spelling mistakes- When you get an exhausted mind due to physical ill health- then you come back and we;ll talk about spelling- till then, if you fele pointing out spelling mistakes makes you smarter, then by all means- keep right on. We all need to puff ourselves up I spose!

[What separates science from ID is the ability to suggest research.]

Bzzzzt- ID suggests research- and by golly they also *gasp* predict- strike 5- you’re out.

post 183: omni- since you’re professing to be into all the ‘latest greatest science known to man’ then I’m sure you’re aware of lateral gene transference, eh? If not, you might want to check it out, because quite frankly, it’s all the rage these days with the evo folk- infact, it’s the only rage that even has a chance of overcoming all the problems with the outdated methods you went to length trying to decribe. Forget ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and ‘speciation’ Neither of those can overcome the problem of NEW information. No matter how much a species varies within it’s own KIND, it can NEVER aquire the NEW information necessary to eventually make the transition to a new KIND- A sparrow will always be a sparrow, a blade of grass will never eventually be an elephant or an orange. The only slight hope that evo has is through lateral gene transference, but I gotta caution- lateral gene transference has impossible boundaries to overcome as well. That’s the marvel of species KINDS, all the wonderful built in protections that prevent their own unique information from becomming too convoluted, and which keeps a KIND a KIND. You can rail against ID all you like- but the fact is that secular science does take it seriously thankfully, but apologists in denial like yourselves unfortunately undermine their hard work and objective observations and counter points to ID science. It’s too bad, because they (the secular scientists) have actual points to make and not petty biased generalized opinions that ignore the facts- They actually have interesting points to make- then there are interesting counter points by ID based on scientific facts- but I guess it’s just easier to denigrade somethign you aren’t aware of and wave a hand and dismiss everythign with ad hominem attacks. Good job!


189 posted on 05/28/2007 9:35:10 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
No matter how much a species varies within it’s own KIND, it can NEVER aquire the NEW information necessary to eventually make the transition to a new KIND- A sparrow will always be a sparrow, a blade of grass will never eventually be an elephant or an orange. The only slight hope that evo has is through lateral gene transference, but I gotta caution- lateral gene transference has impossible boundaries to overcome as well. That’s the marvel of species KINDS, all the wonderful built in protections that prevent their own unique information from becomming too convoluted, and which keeps a KIND a KIND. You can rail against ID all you like- but the fact is that secular science does take it seriously thankfully, but apologists in denial like yourselves unfortunately undermine their hard work and objective observations and counter points to ID science.

How is it that you are arguing for KINDS? That is not a scientific term, but rather a religious term. I thought ID was pure science (at least that's what we are constantly told).

A little slip there?

Might make one suspicious that ID is just creation "science" repackaged to fool the gullible, eh?

190 posted on 05/28/2007 10:06:13 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[By the way, if you want to project an image as someone smart enough to overthrow hundreds of years of science,]

And by the way- we’re not the ones overthrowing anything- Evo science has done a good job of that on it’s own- all we’re doing is pointing out what has been covered up and hushed, and gicing examples of the science that evo crowd doesn’t want published and made aware of.

When you google ID science- it’s quite amusing to see all the hand waving articles against ID based on nothing but ad hominem attacks. It’s amusing to see how worried they are. The efforts they go to in trying to malign those in the science field of ID. You know something is making an impact when you such such a concerted effort of pettiness in trying to undermine with nothing but lies and misinformation. You’ll see page after page of accusations like “ID can’t study the supernatural, therefore, they aren’t ligit” and the equally ignorant statements “ID is about politics and religion and is therefore not science” (whiuch has been insinuated (and outright stated here) Lol- and Yawn.

Of note, overwhelmingly you’ll discover that it’s the secular ealm that argues exclusively, and quite falsely, that ID is a religious matter and a set of theological conciderations- period. Nothign can be further from the proof, and the evidence against such a sentiment is ample and available to anyone. Yet incredibly, this is simply ignored and the false accusations about ID being philosophy continue.

ID is a hypothesis from observation- JUST like evo is, The only difference is that Evo states design is natural, and ID states that it is from an intelliegent source. Evo has no evidences to show design is naturally derived, and yes, ID has no real evidence showing a supernatural source other than pointing out the obvious that the design is complex and mathematically could not happen through random processes precisely because of the very undermining effects that random mistakes has on a species. While it is true that some mistakes can mold already present information and cause mutational oddities, mutations can ONLY work on information that is already present and can not turn a scale into a feather- much to the dismay of those who adamantly insist that it can.

The plain fact is that evo can’t explain design, nor can they explain NEw information in any credible manner, and ID can’t explain a supernatural designer, nor is it the intent of ID to do so- BUT they can explain the observations of design in a supernaural designer’s designs, and can point point out quite validly, that the design is intelligent in nature, and can show the relationship of singular complex design\s to other complex designs. They can also compute the probabilities of randomenss accounting for such complexities, and can investigate scientifically how design relates to survival of an organism.

Intention and design have NOT been ruled out scientifically by evolution studies, nor is it likely it ever will simply because the complexities observed are, well, too complex to be described by natural means. The only hope of evo advocates is to malign those who study design in hopes of keeping hte can of worms called design concealed and hid away from public view.

In the Dover trial Sham, it was asked if ID is falsifiable, and examples were given of falsifiability in ID. One such test was Miller’s “use the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multi-part system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it”. If a viable system could develop through genetic manipulations that mimicked millions of years (much the way the fruitfly experiments did) then this would be a devestating blow to the hypothesis of ID.

Another falsifiable and ligit test is the ‘double-knockout’ of genes in blood clotting. If the tests could confirm that it could advantage a mouse, then Design would be falsified.

Sad that a judge skirted the law, ignored evidence that showed ID passed the test of science qualifiers, and made a petty and quite biased diatribe about ID that had nothing to do with the trial and more to do with a fear that ID might expose more problems with evolution. Sad that the judge was so biased that he wouldn’t even allow the defendants their right to fair and qualified representation when they asked for new council because it became evident that their lawyer, while a smart fella in some areas, simply was not up to the task of arguing ID and coutnering the extreme bias he encountered. Sad that so many websites have dedicated their time and energy posting threads that show an ignorance of what ID is, and what it represents. Ironically, the whole process is the very thing they falesley accuse ID of being- and that is, anti-science. Science should seeks the truth, science should NOT fear exposure of problems, and it should NOT fear legitimate falsifiable competing hypothesis- yet sadly, that is not hte state of science today. It used to be that science went through a VERY strict and arduous peer review system, and accepted ALL legitimate papers regardless of the submitters personal opinions. If the science was saound, the paper was conciderec and went under extensive review- unfortunately that is not the case today. Unfortunately as well, so many buy into the falsehood that science is objective. it’s not- not anymore


191 posted on 05/28/2007 10:39:58 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

KINDS isn’;t a religious term- cripes- As much as you’d like to paint it as such! Say it enough times, and by golly you might even convince yourself

KIND is a VERY simple concept Coyoteman- and, evo can’t even explain the term species- and you’re stuck on the word kind? Lol

Taken from talkorigins: “1. Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical.”

Oh really? So ‘Species” is allowed the generous exception of not having to be precise, while ID is expected to have exacting definiotions in order to be valid? Lol- Hypocrisy once again rears it’s ugly little head!

Kind: A group of organisms descended from a group of common interbreedable ancestors. Note that only the ancestors have to be interbreedable.

No coyote- there was no ‘slip’ as much as you’d like to pretend KINDS is a religious term- infact you need to define it that way because KINDS is a threat to the imprecise ‘species’ definition lol


192 posted on 05/28/2007 10:54:19 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
"Nor is ID connected with creation-Some people are confused..."

Now you're jumbling your words with my words. Which is pathetic. It's not my "point," it's a fake quote you made up.

I said evolution doesn't address the abiogenic origin of life. This was in response to a claim that somehow the lack of such a connection was a legitimate criticism of evolution, which it isn't. I never discussed any connection or lack thereof between "ID" and abiogenic creation, that would be even more pointless, about like discussing a connection or lack thereof between postmodern art and abiogenic creation.

"...recently invented “Design” hypothesis was simply a subterfuge for the same old Creationism..." "...That’s a BS ad hominem attack ..."

No, it's not. It's just a summary of the evidence introduced in the Dover PA trial. The victims did their homework. They tracked back the origins of "ID" theory. It was invented by people who had deliberately constructed a strategy of pushing Creationism into public classrooms by crude attempts to wipe off the fingerprints of religion from it, as a first step in a multi-step plan. It didn't work.

"...evolutionist that believes life came from advanced alien races..."

There you go again, mixing up evolution with the origin of life on earth, which are two separate subjects. For what it's worth, one of the co-discoverers of DNA did write a book about the theory of "panspermia," the possibility that life on earth and other planets was seeded by aliens. If I recall correctly, he thought it might be plausible. But again, as the scientific community knows, that's neither here nor there regarding evolution. I don't know why you keep coming back to the origins of life on earth thing, when you try to criticize evolution. For what it's worth, no, a person's religious beliefs are irrelevant to their scientific contributions, which are characterized by the physical evidence they bring and the analysis they make of it. The problems Creationists have are, they can't seem to leave their religion out of their attempts at science, they don't bring physical evidence (just criticize and attempt to re-analyze that of others), and their analyses make no sense to people who actually are properly trained in the sciences. That's not ad hominem, it's just a fact.

I've known Creationists who couldn't even understand the statistical basis for radiologic dating of materials based on isotope ratios. You ask them about the physics or math behind it, ask them to walk through a calculation of a Poisson-distributed process, or why radioactive decay is Poisson-distributed, and you just get a blank stare. It's not ad hominem to say they don't understand what they're trying to talk about. It's just the truth. In science, it's not the intensity of "belief" that counts, it's whether you can show that you understand the ideas that everybody else is talking about. They can't.

With phrases like "buh bye" and "thanks for playing" sprinkled through your responses, instead of attempts at showing evidence or making logical arguments, I'm getting the impression that you aren't serious about discussing this, it's all some sort of game or joke for you.

"...the judge who didn’t follow the law ...

No, the judge in the Dover PA case just gave the "ID" people a golden opportunity to make their best case. They tried to do so, and they themselves revealed that they were pimping a phony theory and had no idea what they were talking about. The "ID" people in Dover were pathetic pawns, far out of their intellectual depth, who were duped by the charlatans who run outfits like the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center. They were just used, they were the marks of Creationist con artists running a scam called "ID." And the sad thing is we keep turning out people who are potential new marks for these scams because they aren't taught nearly enough about evolution in school. It's as if the schools were manufacturing marks for loan sharks to take advantage of, by not teaching them about the math behind compound interest. Same level of irresponsibility to the kids on the part of the schools.
193 posted on 05/28/2007 11:04:55 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
"Kinds" is a religious term.

Creationists use the term because the Bible speaks of “kinds.” Your mixing it with ID helps to show IDs creationist origins.

Definitions of "kinds":

“categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week" -- Wayne Frair, "Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms," Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000).

Created kinds in creation biology, are organisms that share a common ancestry. The phrase was coined from the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of organisms. They are also referred to as "kinds," "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin. Baraminology is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification and study of the created kinds. Source

Why can't you just admit that you are promoting religion rather than science?

194 posted on 05/28/2007 11:15:40 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

[No, it’s not. It’s just a summary of the evidence introduced in the Dover PA trial. The victims did their homework. They tracked back the origins of “ID” theory. It was invented by people who had deliberately constructed a strategy of pushing Creationism into public classrooms by crude attempts to wipe off the fingerprints of religion from it, as a first step in a multi-step plan. It didn’t work]

Thank you for proving what a sham and injustice the Dover trial was. I couldn’t care less what ID started off as. It has NOTHING to do with the current SCIENCE of ID yet the judge jumped onm that false comparison as though it were the golden goose- Pathetic!

[There you go again, mixing up evolution with the origin of life on earth, which are two separate subjects. ]

You didn’t answer the question!

[If I recall correctly, he thought it might be plausible. But again, as the scientific community knows, that’s neither here nor there regarding evolution.]

No kidding! Here again we see the hypocrisy of the evo arguments- They don’t hold a secular scientists belief about origens against them and focuss entirely on the science the particular scientist does- You and others though apparently can’t get beyond the fact that ID scientists have their own personal beliefs that have NOTHING to do with the SCIENCE of ID

[ they don’t bring physical evidence]

That’s A biased lie!

[You ask them about the physics or math behind it, ask them to walk through a calculation of a Poisson-distributed process, or why radioactive decay is Poisson-distributed, and you just get a blank stare.]

Lol- you’ve asked lay people, the public, about something outside of their fields and they give you a blank stare? Gosh- why that just renders all ID science moot then- Perhaps, and htis is just a htought, why don’t you ask Creation scientists who study radiometric processes your question? Nah- you might get aa learned response and couldn’t wave the broad hand of dismissal that way.

[That’s not ad hominem]

Yes it is- as evidenced by your last statement!

[I’m getting the impression that you aren’t serious about discussing this, it’s all some sort of game or joke for you]

Excuse me- Discussing what? Responding to you ‘ID is relgion” insinuations? Sorry, but I won’t play the petty little games- Bring hte science to the discussion and we’ll talk about htigns I’m familiar with- Bring nothing but forum insults, and yes, you’ll get a buh bye from me!

Nope sorry- the dover trial was NOT a golden opertunity- not for hte ID side=- not when they had a biased judge who wouldn’t allow basic rights of the defendants to fair representation. I’ll be happy to point you to sites that break the case down and expose the extreme bias and the skirting of the law the judge engaged in


195 posted on 05/28/2007 11:59:34 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

It’s pretty simple Coyote- but appartently you’re having trouble grasping the basics of biology so I’ll post it again and again and again- everytime you attempt to dismiss a basic biological truth simply because the bible uses the words kinds.

Kind: A group of organisms descended from a group of common interbreedable ancestors. Note that only the ancestors have to be interbreedable.

And oooooh- ‘creatonist origins’ scarey- and this would sdiscount the SCIENCE how again Coyote? Yawn.


196 posted on 05/28/2007 12:03:11 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

The judge in the dover trial FLAT OUT LIED 9in his concluding remarks-= His LIES shaped his descision with extreme bias.

1: He stated that ID was a Christian idea- Bzzzt LIE number 1! There are Muslims, Jews, and people of all pursuasions- even agnostics that study ID science!

2: The judge called ID Creationsim. LIE number 2 - Behe is NO creationist NOR are many folks who study the SCIENCE of ID

3: The judge defined ID as a proposal that studies the origins of life from a supernatural source Bzzzt! : LIE number 3. ID makes NO such claims about origins NOR do the carry out hteir SCIENCE with that objective in mind.

Fair trial? No bias? Bull Crap!


197 posted on 05/28/2007 12:27:17 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The Flintstones will be used to teach family values AND Young Earth Creationism!
198 posted on 05/28/2007 12:34:11 PM PDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (Amnesty alone didn't kill the GOP - socialism did long ago. The stench you smell now is it's corpse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Coyoteman; js1138
I'll chime in with Coyoteman and js1138, "kinds" is certainly a religious term, I've never seen "kinds" used as a substitute for "species" in published scientific literature.

"A sparrow will always be a sparrow..."

That's simply a denial of evolution. I thought "ID'ers" were trying to supplement evolution with their more enlightened understanding of the miracles required by the presumed "Designer" to spur evolution on, not deny it happens at all.

"...it can NEVER aquire the NEW information ..."

Sure it can. Mutations, or re-arrangement of chromosomes due to large-scale mistakes during cell division, including gamete formation, make for different gene sequences. Different information that wasn't there before is what new information is. Whether or not the organism survives and reproduces determines whether it is "good" information or "bad" information, but either way, it's certainly new. It wasn't there before, anyway, I don't know what else "new" could mean.

"...secular science ..."

Admitting what I've been saying all along, that you "ID'ers" are promoting religion, not science.

I'm well aware of lateral gene transfer. (Actually, I can remember discussing it with biologist friends in the early '90's, and trying to convince the more skeptical of them about its potential significance.) It's not a "slight hope," it's just another mechanism among many by which species evolve into other species. But as you apparently believe that's impossible, it's unclear why you would even bring it up.

Just to clarify my earlier post, in the Dover case, the people I refer to as "victims" are the plaintiffs, parents who brought the case against the school board. The people I refer to as "dupes" and "marks" are the school board members who were acting as pawns for the "ID" movement. They were conned by nonsensical pseudoscientific presentations in their churches and religious groups, which in turn were manufactured by the Creationist organizations which designed the con.

In addition to frequent misspellings (we all make typos, including me, for which I apologize), your use of language such as:

friggin childish and imature
dude
gave a crap


mark you as a less than serious person. Your serious illness, which has given you the insight that life is too short and precious to waste time correcting spelling in one's own public writing, surely did not implant in your mind the idea that using terms like "friggin," "dude," and "gave a crap" are useful when arguing in a scientific debate. Or if it did, it must have been some sort of very exotic brain fever, perhaps bordering on the miraculous?
199 posted on 05/28/2007 12:34:43 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

“Either everythign happened at random and life came from non life naturally, which is biologically impossible”

Just because we haven’t observed it yet doesn’t make it so.

Organic molecules occur naturally, and we’ve observed their ability to self-organize, based on their chemical properties.


200 posted on 05/28/2007 12:40:22 PM PDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (Amnesty alone didn't kill the GOP - socialism did long ago. The stench you smell now is it's corpse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 451-474 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