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

Skip to comments.

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)
Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 next last
To: Moonman62

The ignorance and belated knowledge lies completely on the godless materialist side of the equation. Creation and ID scientists have been predicting directed mutation for years.


101 posted on 11/25/2008 1:35:08 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: js1138

...but it is logically more consistent to assume that there are uncaused events. It’s certainly consistent with experiment.

This is twice you have made this assertion without any proof. Something from nothing! Now, may I ask you to do an exercise. Try to grasp the concept of nothingness...no time, no space, no matter, no energy...Nothing! The idea of the universe, or anything coming to be out of nothing is worse than magic. At least a magician has a hat and a rabbit. But you have nothing....out of that you create the universe? Explain this to me from a naturalistic materialistic world view. I think if you are honest you will not assert the maddness of a universe springing from nothing. Observationally we never see things come from nothing. You don't sit in your living room and watch Jack Baur on '24' and suddenly, with nothing to account for it, a porcupine appears between you and the television. You don't think about porcupines obscuring your view of the next killing by Jack Baur....it just never happens. Yet you assert it could happen. This principle is consistently verified by scientists, policemen, engineers, mothers....we just don't need to worry about such things. The evidence points away from your assertion, not toward agreement with it.

Now, these quantum particles, if they exist, and many physists think they do not, do not come from nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people think when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. To the contrary, it is a sea of fluctuating energy locked up in the vacuum-an area rich in physical structure and can be described by physical laws. The particles, if they exist, are thought to arise by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. So, it is not a good example of something coming from nothing, or eminating without cause.

All you do is push back the question of creation one step. Now you have to explain how the fluctuating sea of energy came to be. If quantum physics operates in the domain described by quantum physics you cannot legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of the domain. You must provide something transendent of the domain to explain quantum physics. It becomes circular reasoning and defeats itself philosophically and logically.

102 posted on 11/25/2008 1:40:37 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Back to the point. Modern science is based on the SUPERNATURAL ASSUMPTION that the Creator made His creation in a logical manner that was discoverable by His special creation, mankind.

I think I agree with this statement, although some modern scientist refuse to assent to this assumption.

103 posted on 11/25/2008 1:45:16 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Nothing! The idea of the universe, or anything coming to be out of nothing is worse than magic.

Any system of thought that assumes causation is a necessity leads to an infinite regress.

Assuming that causation is not necessary may be counterintuitive, but many things in physics are counterintuitive.

So you can choose between counterintuitive physics or a logical absurdity.

104 posted on 11/25/2008 1:45:39 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"If you can’t cite an example of a scientific discovery that resulted from abandoning methodological materialism, could you tell us what point you are trying to make?"

In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious arguments is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.

That you continue to insist on maintaining your position even after I have showed you the fallacies supporting it merely proves the point that a belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability.

105 posted on 11/25/2008 1:47:29 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Have you and I been arguing on the same side of the issue all along? :)


106 posted on 11/25/2008 1:49:19 PM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Any system of thought that assumes causation is a necessity leads to an infinite regress.

This statement is not true beyond the point of singularity of origin of the universe. If you believe what you said, please regress cause to the step "one point" prior to the universe coming to be. I will not ask you to infinitley regress....just that one step.

107 posted on 11/25/2008 1:51:46 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

I don’t recall mentioning philosophical materialism.


108 posted on 11/25/2008 1:53:15 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
“We have no idea how this could have happened, but we must dogmatically deny any possible of intelligent design.”

Actually, more accurately it's: "It appears that proteins were designed with future evolution in mind, but it can't be because we're already wedded to a materialist paradigm."

109 posted on 11/25/2008 1:53:35 PM PST by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

What do you mean by one step prior to the universe coming to be? Is that anything like one step prior to God coming to be?


110 posted on 11/25/2008 1:55:05 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

I suspect when the antichrist does something similar they will embrace him as God not knowing who God really is.


111 posted on 11/25/2008 1:57:08 PM PST by LuxMaker (The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, Thomas J 1819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"That's why science relies on methodological naturalism -- an assumption about the natural world."

Clearly, the Big Bang cannot be methodologically repeated, yet philosophical naturalism believes in it. Clearly, abiogenesis cannot be methodologically repeated, yet philosophical naturalism believes in it. Clearly, evolution cannot be methodologically repeated, yet philosophical naturalism believes in it.

Equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism is a fallacy no matter how you present it.

"If that assumption can be shown to be incomplete or wrong it can be changed."

Science assumes much more than methodological naturalism or it would not believe in non-methodological, unobservable events. Clearly you are not able to think critically.

"Creationists, on the other hand, willfully accept a philosophical position that destroys their critical-thinking ability--they are absolutely unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. They misrepresent, pick and choose, and otherwise mangle any data that contradicts their religious beliefs, and that which they can't so treat they ignore. Creation "science" is pure religious apologetics, and everyone knows it."

Philosophical naturalists, on the other hand, willfully accept a philosophical position that destroys their critical-thinking ability--they are absolutely unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts their philosophical beliefs. They misrepresent, pick and choose, and otherwise mangle any data that contradicts their philosophical beliefs, and that which they can't so treat they ignore. "Science" is pure apologetics for philosophical naturalism, and everyone knows it."

"So don't lecture scientists about critical thinking.

You commit the fallacy of equating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and don't think you need to be lectured about critical thinking? You generate an ad hominem attack that needs few wording changes to be equally applicable to philosophical naturalists and you don't think you need to be lectured about critical thinking?

Clearly, your belief in philosophical naturalism has completely destroyed your ability to think critically.

112 posted on 11/25/2008 1:59:09 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"I don’t recall mentioning philosophical materialism."

Just because you don't mention it doesn't mean that the assumption doesn't lie at the foundation of your responses. Does that make sense?

Clearly your commitment to philosophical naturalism has completely destroyed your ability to think critically such that you commit fallacy after fallacy without even being aware of it. It is just natural for you to think that way, I believe, as a consequence of your belief in philosophical naturalism.

113 posted on 11/25/2008 2:02:46 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Please state when and where non-naturalistic processes have been used in science to produce a tangible result."

Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers.

In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious questions is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.

114 posted on 11/25/2008 2:07:11 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So give us an example from the history of science in which abandonment of methodological materialism led to a useful discovery.

Definitions matter. "Methodological materialism" in your context changes to fit each new discovery, so discoveries like the Big Bang and the catastrophic formation of the Channeled Scablands which were derided in scientific circles because of their tangential support of Biblical accounts don't satisfy your question. But at the time, they did indeed require abandoning what were considered at the time to be "methodological materialism" for a seemingly religious explanation. After which, the definition of methodological naturalism expanded to account for each.

115 posted on 11/25/2008 2:10:12 PM PST by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
==The creationist position is that there is no common descent. Please tell me you understand that the fossil record is irrelevant to this point? If the process is guided you could have sudden changes that do not overthrough common descent.

The problem is there have been no sudden changes except extinction events from the Cambrian “explosion” until now. Those plants and animals that did not go extinct are pretty much the same today as their counterparts in the fossil record. This presents a huge challenge for evolutionists (even for the notion of guided evolution IMHO).

116 posted on 11/25/2008 2:10:29 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question.

Interesting. Now please answer the question: when has science ever used non-materialistic data with tangible results? If you cannot answer this question then you should not be using the fruits of science -- things like computers, cars, medicine, etc. None of these exist without the scientific method and the fact science is grounded in the physical universe.

I await a direct answer, not philosophical musings ending in personal attacks.

117 posted on 11/25/2008 2:11:50 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; GodGunsGuts
""Kind" is not a scientific term. And the meaning in the Bible has become more fuzzy as the Bible is translated into different languages,"

'Kind' cannot be a 'scientific' term by definition because it is not based in philosophical naturalism. Truth by definition is not any rational support for evolution.

"Can you please describe what you mean by "kind" -- starting with its use in the original language of the Bible and tracing its etymology to the current colloquial use of the word and any potential rigorous scientific application?"

A 'kind' is a group of interbreeding species, of which there are multitudes of examples.

118 posted on 11/25/2008 2:12:04 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Creation and ID scientists have been predicting directed mutation for years.

What makes you think this latest discovery is directed? Does it violate the laws of physics?

119 posted on 11/25/2008 2:12:22 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
Definitions matter. "Methodological materialism" in your context changes to fit each new discovery, so discoveries like the Big Bang and the catastrophic formation of the Channeled Scablands which were derided in scientific circles because of their tangential support of Biblical accounts don't satisfy your question. But at the time, they did indeed require abandoning what were considered at the time to be "methodological materialism" for a seemingly religious explanation. After which, the definition of methodological naturalism expanded to account for each.

In which of your examples was "methodological naturalism" expanded to include an intelligent designer or the direct hand of the Creator?

120 posted on 11/25/2008 2:13:47 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
A 'kind' is a group of interbreeding species, of which there are multitudes of examples.

So if I provide proof of a species which has evolved to where it cannot breed with others of the original species, you would agree a new "kind" has evolved?

121 posted on 11/25/2008 2:15:17 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
'Kind' cannot be a 'scientific' term by definition because it is not based in philosophical naturalism. Truth by definition is not any rational support for evolution.

I have no idea what that even means.

122 posted on 11/25/2008 2:17:00 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"Interesting. Now please answer the question: when has science ever used non-materialistic data with tangible results? If you cannot answer this question then you should not be using the fruits of science -- things like computers, cars, medicine, etc. None of these exist without the scientific method and the fact science is grounded in the physical universe."

Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers.

Claiming that a person has no right to 'use the fruits' of methodological naturalism unless they also accept philosophical naturalism as a belief system is simply irrational. There is no rational basis for such a demand.

"I await a direct answer, not philosophical musings ending in personal attacks."

You have received a direct answer. That you refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not a direct answer. It is also not a personal attack to tell someone that they commit logical fallacies or that they lack the critical-thinking abilities to recognize their error when that is plainly the case.

123 posted on 11/25/2008 2:17:07 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You have received a direct answer. That you refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not a direct answer.

Let me make it easier -- a yes or no question. Has there ever been an instance in science where a tangible result has come from some event not observed and described in the physical universe?

Yes or no. Simple. No need for rambling nor inventing phrases that do not apply to the question at hand.

124 posted on 11/25/2008 2:21:46 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

All life violates the laws of chemistry and physics.


125 posted on 11/25/2008 2:22:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"So if I provide proof of a species which has evolved to where it cannot breed with others of the original species, you would agree a new "kind" has evolved?"

Only if you want to move on your next fallacy, the converse fallacy of accident.

126 posted on 11/25/2008 2:23:54 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Only if you want to move on your next fallacy, the converse fallacy of accident

So why bring Kinds up at all?

And for someone who spends all his time erecting strawmen, I find it singularly ironic you spend all your posts speaking of fallacies.

127 posted on 11/25/2008 2:25:56 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; freedumb2003

I would add that the Biblical kinds mean that plants and animals cannot interbreed (nor can they ever interbreed) beyond certain intelligently designed limits. If you wish to find out what those limits are, that is a job for science, and is currently being carried out by Creation Scientists in the field of Baraminology.


128 posted on 11/25/2008 2:27:50 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
In which of your examples was "methodological naturalism" expanded to include an intelligent designer or the direct hand of the Creator?

It doesn't matter. Just like Intelligent Design states, you don't need to define or even include God--you just need to describe the designer's actions. This is apparently enough for you to reject the hypothesis out of hand, just as it was for the steady-state universe adherents when the Big Bang was first proposed and the uniformitarianists when J Harlen Bretz first postulated how the Channeled Scablands were formed.

129 posted on 11/25/2008 2:29:14 PM PST by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
It doesn't matter. Just like Intelligent Design states, you don't need to define or even include God--you just need to describe the designer's actions. This is apparently enough for you to reject the hypothesis out of hand, just as it was for the steady-state universe adherents when the Big Bang was first proposed and the uniformitarianists when J Harlen Bretz first postulated how the Channeled Scablands were formed.

That is begging the question: Intelligent Design states you have an Intelligent Designer. Expansion and changes in scientific theories are part of science -- when have any included an Intelligent Designer or creator? Science may have puzzles before it -- CONSTANTLY. How do these puzzles somehow postulate an intelligent designer or the hand of a creator?

130 posted on 11/25/2008 2:35:30 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

All life obeys God’s laws of chemistry and physics. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Please tell me how the bacteria living under my fingernail right now is violating the laws of physics and chemistry.

Wow, you really think ‘miracles’ happen in the strangest of places.


131 posted on 11/25/2008 2:37:18 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I would add that the Biblical kinds mean that plants and animals cannot interbreed (nor can they ever interbreed) beyond certain intelligently designed limits

If there are such limits, how can you prove they are intelligently designed?

132 posted on 11/25/2008 2:37:19 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"I have no idea what that even means."

I know. It's one of the unfortunate consequences of a belief in philosophical naturalism. Logical fallacies, non sequiturs, lack of critical-thinking ability and many other problems follow from it.

Basically, what you don't understand is that certain terms cannot be true outside of a certain philosophical position because they are defined by it. If you replace the word 'scientific' with 'philosphically natural' you will see that it is true by definition, also known as a tautology.

Since philosophical naturalism does not recognize the term 'kind', it is impossible to define it such that it is a philosophically natural term. It is the converse argument of claiming that 'evolution' as a term must be defined biblically in order to be valid and is a non sequitur.

133 posted on 11/25/2008 2:37:53 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Just because you don't mention it doesn't mean that the assumption doesn't lie at the foundation of your responses. Does that make sense?

Deal with what I say and not what you fantasize I say, and we can have a discussion.

134 posted on 11/25/2008 2:39:39 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
" So why bring Kinds up at all?"

I was responding to your post.

"And for someone who spends all his time erecting strawmen, I find it singularly ironic you spend all your posts speaking of fallacies."

You think that pointing out fallacies in your thinking is a 'strawman'? As I have pointed out, multiple, serial fallacies are the very foundation of your belief-system. How can that be a 'strawman'? LOL!

135 posted on 11/25/2008 2:41:32 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
...and the uniformitarianists when J Harlen Bretz first postulated how the Channeled Scablands were formed.

Bretz produced evidence to support his contention.

Creationists have yet to do so. They expect their religious beliefs to be accepted uncritically.

136 posted on 11/25/2008 2:42:26 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

Well yes, science is cumulative, and the theories about specific historical events have to be adjusted to fit new evidence. So far the adjustments haven’t required believing the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it, or that it is 6000 years old.

And yes, scientists tried to fit geological findings into a Biblical framework until about 1830, at which point most admitted that a different interpretation was required.


137 posted on 11/25/2008 2:45:08 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I know. It's one of the unfortunate consequences of a belief in philosophical naturalism. Logical fallacies, non sequiturs, lack of critical-thinking ability and many other problems follow from it

No, it just means your post didn't make any sense.

138 posted on 11/25/2008 2:47:13 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
" So why bring Kinds up at all?"

I was responding to your post.

That doesn't answer the underlying question -- in responding to my post, you reinforce the idea of kinds.

You think that pointing out fallacies in your thinking is a 'strawman'? As I have pointed out, multiple, serial fallacies are the very foundation of your belief-system. How can that be a 'strawman'? LOL!

Ducking and weaving and positing a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I ask is not "pointing out fallacies" -- it is merely building strawmen and then lighting them.

My question (still unanswered) was very simple -- it didn't need pph after pph of philosophical meanderings. I am sure you enjoyed posting them but they are just evading the issue.

139 posted on 11/25/2008 2:51:10 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"No, it just means your post didn't make any sense."

What you mean is that they don't make sense to you. But you don't have the ability to recognize the logical fallacies, non sequiturs and critical-thinking errors that form the foundation of your belief-system. I have pointed them out to you in broad daylight and you still cannot understand. I'm not being mean when I say that is a consequence of believing in philosophical naturalism. It really is.

I know first-hand because I used to believe it too and didn't understand either. But if I could get out, so can you. It's up to you whether you want to break free from that mindset or not.

140 posted on 11/25/2008 3:00:28 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Deal with what I say and not what you fantasize I say, and we can have a discussion."

Deal with the reality of what you say, not what you pretend doesn't exist because you don't say it and we can have a discussion.

Jeez dude. Could you not figure that one out?

141 posted on 11/25/2008 3:02:03 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"That doesn't answer the underlying question -- in responding to my post, you reinforce the idea of kinds."

Well, don't ask me why bring it up when I was responding to your post. I was trying to help you understand what a kind is.

"Ducking and weaving and positing a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I ask is not "pointing out fallacies" -- it is merely building strawmen and then lighting them."

The points I make have everything to do with the question you asked. Pretending they don't merely reinforces the logical fallacies your question is based on. You are the one building castles in the air and calling it a strawman when someone points that out.

"My question (still unanswered) was very simple -- it didn't need pph after pph of philosophical meanderings. I am sure you enjoyed posting them but they are just evading the issue."

Assuming that the basis for your beliefs is true 'a priori' and then arguing from there is merely truth by definition. That doesn't help you understand that you are basing your beliefs on 'a priori' assumptions, logical fallacies and non sequiturs. My points are not philosophical meanderings. Your beliefs are based on an 'a priori' acceptance of philosophical naturalism and we cannot have a discussion until you recognize that fact. Once you recognize that fact, the entire nature of the discussion changes to real issues, not arguments over defined truths as you now insist upon.

142 posted on 11/25/2008 3:10:05 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

You seem to be saying you have sex with your mother. Deal with the reality of what you say, not what you pretend doesn’t exist because you don’t say it and we can have a discussion.


143 posted on 11/25/2008 3:13:03 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

==If there are such limits, how can you prove they are intelligently designed?

If scientists discover such limits, it would go done as yet another correct prediction of Creation Science.


144 posted on 11/25/2008 3:15:16 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==All life obeys God’s laws of chemistry and physics.

Actually, no it doesn’t. I don’t have time to go into it right now. But I will return to demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about (again).


145 posted on 11/25/2008 3:16:53 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Just so we understand each other, you are asserting that you can make up things I never said and continue the discussion as if I said them.

Does that really make sense to you?


146 posted on 11/25/2008 3:16:58 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Silly boy. Life obeys GGG laws, and HIV is harmless, and gold is selling for $1600 (and has been since early this year).


147 posted on 11/25/2008 3:20:03 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
What you mean is that they don't make sense to you. But you don't have the ability to recognize the logical fallacies, non sequiturs and critical-thinking errors that form the foundation of your belief-system.

Repeating yourself provides no heft to your attempt at an argument. Stating "you have no critical thinking skills" pretty much says "I have no idea what I am talking about, but I'll put it on you."

148 posted on 11/25/2008 3:35:08 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Assuming that the basis for your beliefs is true 'a priori' and then arguing from there is merely truth by definition. That doesn't help you understand that you are basing your beliefs on 'a priori' assumptions, logical fallacies and non sequiturs.

Science, in its current state merely is. I asked a simple yes/no question. You refuse to answer it.

This thread has degenerated into you just repeating yourself in your assertions of a bunch of gobbledygook and saying "logical fallacies" a lot (unfounded, as anyone who knows what logical fallacies really are can see).

Since we aren't even discussing the OP anymore and you continue to refuse to answer my very simple question, I am outta here.

149 posted on 11/25/2008 3:39:08 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"Clearly, your belief in philosophical naturalism has completely destroyed your ability to think critically."

No, he's right. You are not in a position to lecture anyone about critical thinking.

150 posted on 11/25/2008 4:01:16 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 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