Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The most amazing thing is that the supposed designer made things look exactly as if they had arisen through evolution. No human engineer could make an interconnected system look more like it has arisen through small incremental steps.
Oddly enough, human engineers don't try. Human genetic engineers make things that don't fit a nested hierarchy. So the only actual samples of designed life where we are certain of the designer's identity and methods don't fit the evolution paradigm. The M.O. is wrong.
==It’s not possible that the Universe was designed so that under the right circumstances, life could arise and appear to be a result of random processes?
If you insist on that possibility being covered, no problem. Since there would be no evidence for it one way or the other, it would take but a few seconds to mention it and move on.
You don't have any problem with ID getting the same treatment?
You're right. I would say my religious faith is pretty strong, and as a credentialed, practicing scientist, I do not feel the least bit threatened by science.
Evolution, on the other hand, I think is a bunch of unsubstantiated, circularly-reasoned hokum.
I see a bunch of humans trying to force a pre-conceived model onto a bunch of incomplete and unconnected data, then coming to the conclusion that a Creator isn’t necessary, and therefore doesn’t exist.
It all starts with your pre-suppositions, like looking through different colored lenses at the same picture and reporting different conclusions.
People are impatient. They don't like to take 200 million years to do something.
It’s not a matter of like/dislike for the Creator -
it’s a matter of “not necessary” to take millions of years to create.
==You don’t have any problem with ID getting the same treatment?
You don’t mind Darwin’s ToE getting the same treatment?
Probably not. Geology, radiometrics and astrometrics are going to get contentious.
All of which are based on some assumptions that are based on the another assumption of timeframe.
IE, circular reasoning.
"It must have taken billions of years, so I'll make assumptions with this in mind when examining the evidence that proves billions of years."
I'm saying only one error in scientific understanding is a vast improvement over the current high school science education.
==Probably not. Geology, radiometrics and astrometrics are going to get contentious.
Then let both sides be taught, and let the scientific contest begin.
It might be classified as unconnected if it didn't lead to research and didn't predict things. What is your alternative scientific explanation for the ability to predict where to dig for intermediate fossils and to predict what will be found? What alternative scientific explanation predicts nested hierarchies in both the fossil record and in DNA? Why do living things that are known to be designed fall outside the nested hierarchies?
The debate has already been conducted. Your side lost.
You're just pulling an Al Gore now, trying silly lawyer tricks to sneak in the back door.
“Intermediate fossils” - forcing the model on observation.
Yes, perhaps you’ll find certain fossils in certain places because that’s where those animals lived, but I must say, this is the first assertion of this “proof” that I’ve heard of.
“Nested hierarchies”? Wow, that sounds a lot like OOD, Object Oriented Design - definitely signs of an intelligence involved in the Creation.
“Know to be designed” - you mean, created by man.
This would be like wonder why a sculpture created by another sculpture didn’t have the same characteristics as the first sculpture.
As usual you have it backwards, Wiley. Al Gore is dishonestly trying to convince the masses that the scientific debate is over and that his side already won....just like you're tying to do now with respect to Creation/ID vs. Evolution. You should give your hero Al Gore a call, I'm sure you two would make fast friends.
Who's going to teach YEC geology and radiometrics, and what do they have to present for evidence?
C’mon, everybody knows the answer...it’s caused by the devil beating his wife...ain’t you got no learning boy??...sit down and let me explain this gravity thing to ya as well...you see, there are these angels...magritte :)
You mean teach science as it's meant to be taught? That a theory is a theory and can be disproved any time the evidence is found to disprove it?
Horrors.
==Who’s going to teach YEC geology and radiometrics, and what do they have to present for evidence?
That would have to be worked out. First, most Darwinian assumptions would have to be removed from science textbooks used in public schools, or they would have to present the arguments against said assumptions in each and every case. Second, curriculum would have to be developed that faithfully presents the strongest arguments on both sides on any given scientific issue. And elective classes should be offered for those who want to delve into the controversy even deeper.
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.