Posted on 08/10/2008 3:54:03 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Big Science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its rebel!
Attacked by pro-evolution scientists and others, this film, Expelled exposed the prejudice leveled against scientists who reject Darwinian thinking, and took almost $8 million at the box office at around 700 theaters earlier this year, making it the 12th most successful documentary of all time.
(Excerpt) Read more at christiancinema.com ...
I tire of your pretending to not understand. If you need help find someone there to explain it.
If I carve a stone arch, does that imply that there are no stone arches carved by erosion?
Humans do modify living things by design, and the results are distinguishable because genetically, they do not fit the nested hierarchy of common descent. Since this is how humans behave when they design, what motive would the invisible, unnameable Designer have for making all living things appear to be the result of evolution?
Are you RadioAstronomer? I am honored : )
I consider myself honored to be an internet friend of RadioAstronomer. Since he was banned, I carry his memory on my home page.
No, but by the same token can you admit that a stone arch was carved on purpose? That is what is being denied. The possibility that it was carved with intent. Only the natural erosion one is allowed to be acknowledged.
The one carved by erosion?
I don't follow you line of reasoning. The fact that a stone arch can be designed does not imply that all instances are designed.
The problem for the intellignt design movement is that living things designed by human genetic engineers have features that distinguish them from living things that fit the forensic determination of common descent. In a court case, the natural or artificial lineage could be determined.
Look, when you are digging for archaeological artifacts, you are looking for things that have features similar to things known to have been created by humans. We have a long list of such things, and we have provenances for many kinds of objects. Pottery, arrowheads, spear points, etc.
It’s a little tough looking for objects that are supposedly the work of an unknown designer having unknown motives and capabilities, working at unknown times and places.
What we do have are examples of living things designed and modified by humans, and we can distinguish them from things that could have resulted from common descent. We make this distinction using the same methods and reasoning we use to determine or exclude paternity.
I don't follow you line of reasoning. The fact that a stone arch can be designed does not imply that all instances are designed.”
No but sticking only with the stone arch analogy, an arch carved by a man is possible. All arches do not have to be by erosion. If you came across an arched doorway made up of individual blocks, you could infer the arch was made by intelligent design. Even though there are plenty of arches carved by erosion. This one isn't. The problem with the evolutionist fanatics is they wouldn't allow anyone to suggest the arch doorway is anything other than caused by erosion. To suggest it was built is unforgivable.
Now, as far a the human genetic engineers creating life from scratch, IF they achieve it they will have achieve intelligent design.
The problem with your last analogy is that a million years from now could the determination be made which was made in the laboratory and what already exists in the outside world right now be made?
Since evos are terrified of the concept of a supreme being lets do a sci fi example. Say a space race decided to spread life through the universe. They create DNA and seed it on comets throughout the star systems they travel through. The simple viruses or whatever hit all the planets and flourish for a while on Mars and Earth. Over time our planet is the better host and the DNA replicates and diversifies into the myriad of life we have now.
Evolution happens and intelligent design happens.
SO what is wrong with looking for signs of the design?
Intelligent Design does not replace evolution as a theory.
It simply looks at another aspect. Attempting to find signs of the origin just like looking for evidence of the big bang for the evidence of the start of the universe.
I think this is accurate; the wonderful solution evolutionists have to the debate is to tell thoughtful ID proponents to STFU. Really. How nice.
Kind of like, oh, I don’t know...Islamofacists in the Middle East, like...Nazi Pelosi and the drilling debate, like...Al Gore and the “established science” crowd on Global Warming....any number of “we know better, so you sit over there...” totalitarians.
Read. Listen. With an open mind.
Without a theory of design, what do you look for?
In a sense, biologists have beeen looking for anything that doesn't look like the product of common descent, and in a hundred and fifty years, have not found any such thing. Now that we have genome sequencing, we have even more powerful tools, and the evidence for common descent is even stronger.
Once again, how do you look for something if you can't say what it is you are looking for?
I don't happen to agree with Dawkins : )
Now on to the snowflake. Where to start seems to be the problem. Chaos theory? Complexity theory? Emergent properties of phase change? I think Complexity theory is probably the simplest. The ability of complex systems to generate order is impressive. Do you want to start there?
I am waiting.
Read. Listen. With an open mind.
I always do.
Perhaps this article on the physics of snow crystals will help.
let’s hear all about that type of complex information that in the snowflake please..
Then again, perhaps not.
Then I’ve helped you with those two suggestions. Good luck.
If you haven’t watched this you should. I rented it and watched it expecting a comedy and saw a tragedy instead.
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.