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

Skip to comments.

Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution
Discovery Institute ^ | January 22, 2009

Posted on 01/23/2009 9:39:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-124 last
To: jimmyray
Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.”[54]...

I am confused.
Does he dissent, or does he not?


Clicking on that 54 brought me to the NYT article where it clarified, "Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory..." He says he was prodding the scientific community to challenge them by signing. Your point is valid though, he's just being a contrarian for the sake of it.
101 posted on 01/24/2009 6:28:41 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
For example, I read that there are 35 genera of frogs--if a 36th appeared, wouldn't you just say "it's still a frog"?

I will go you 2 better, in that they are all of the same order Anura! Since they were not required to be taken on the ark, and would not be eradicated by a worldwide flood, I would expect a mush greater diversity of these animals than ducks, of which all of their preflood ancestor were destroyed. But still, a frog is a frog!

In fact, the frog presents more of a problem for your theory, in that you must explain the morphing of a water born tailed creature that develops legs, loses the tail, and breathes air through lungs that replaced the feather gills. What is the fascinating explantion that the evolutionist offers for this? Not only did it evolve swimming aparatus, it also evolved land required apparatus, but lost neither! A true wonder of the blind mutation and natural selection mechanism! Hah!!! I've seen the pictures, and read the conjecture, and am nowhere near convinced.

This animal is a testament to the marvelous Creator, who, when the time was right, appeared in the flesh on this earth, to pay the penalty for our sins so we would not have to!

102 posted on 01/24/2009 6:48:57 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
This animal is a testament to the marvelous Creator

All animals are a testament to their marvelous Creator, as is the marvelous system he created to produce them over millions of year.

And I love the story of the world's frogs living under the floodwaters for a full year.

103 posted on 01/24/2009 7:11:35 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[You claim that Intelligent Design doesn’t need to show who the Designer is or where and how they acted.]]

You see- that is what your problem is- you read exactly what you want to- Objective? I think not- I never said what you just said- You are intentionally misinterpreting what I said

[[I say that makes it a ridiculously weak competitor to the Theory of Evolution.]]

Rediculously huh? Tell me Hahaha- What’s ‘rediculous’ abotu the evdience that hsows Macroeovlution is impossible? What is ‘rediculous’ about showing evidnece for IC?

[[Thousands of scientists are at work trying to figure out how evolution happens—what came first, what changed, what caused the change, how one organism is related to another, and so on. They’re willing—even hoping—to find something difficult to explain, because that’s what they live for.]]

IF you bleeive there is no bias against evidence that isn’t naturalism- then that just again shows you have an a priori belief- Many scienctists have attested to the bias they have received when they broke from the norm of naturlaism- but I guess in your mind, they are nothign but ‘rogue’ scientists and not ‘real scientists’ eh?

[[We just saw in another thread that many “evolutionists”—without rejecting evolution in the slightest—are challenging the picture of a family tree of species and trying to replace it with some kind of web or bush.]]

We sure did- and you just exposed the agenda right there- ‘without deviating from naturalism in the slightest’ Because by golly, it just HAS to be naturalism in theirm ind- despite the fact that the hypothesis is falling apart.

[[And against that you propose a theory that just says “If you haven’t seen it develop yourself, start to finish, you must ascribe it to a Designer.”]]

Sorry- but that’s an assinine statement- and isn’t based on the facts or on any actual ID science that I know of- and you know htis- it’s been pointed out to you many itmes- but your a priori rejection of ID has blinded you to your own bias apparently, and you just can’t help making htese rediculous false claims.


104 posted on 01/24/2009 8:35:16 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

One last point and one more question: Define “kind” and I hope you do realize that the inventor of ID and its lead proponent (and money-maker), Dr. Behe accepts common decent and would tell you without hesitation that Coyoteman’s chart is accurate and true.]]

I coudl care less what Behe beleives OUTSIDE of the actual science and evidnece- they can beleive little green frogs turn into princes when kissed by princesses if he likes- it’s irrelevent to the actual facts- quite a number of scientists beleive common descentt- big deal- the evidence shows otherwise- discontinuity- NOT continuity- and guess what? Lot’s of scientists agree and would not agree one bit with coyoteman’s chart- Are you suggesting a pissing match here? Go pick one with someone else- I’m ONLY itnerested in the science-

As for your other questiosn you will finsd all the answersonline

[[Riiiight. I also ignore my 3 yr old when he’s being petulant and not making any sense. Same thing.]]

Yep- just clamp your hands tightly over your eyes, ignore the evidences, and claim those bringign the evidneces are being ‘petulent’ Swell defense for Macroevolution I must tell you.


105 posted on 01/24/2009 8:40:32 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I never said what you just said- You are intentionally misinterpreting what I said

You said: "ID in NO way has to posit who or what hte intelligence is behind intelligent design."

I said: "Intelligent Design doesn’t need to show who the Designer is or where and how they acted."

I'll leave it to the other readers to decide how much of a misrepresentation that really is.

On the other hand, I said: "without rejecting evolution in the slightest."

You said: ‘without deviating from naturalism in the slightest." Again, I'll let the readers decide who's misreprenting whom here.

106 posted on 01/24/2009 9:19:42 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
And I love the story of the world's frogs living under the floodwaters for a full year.

Ever read up on frogs? They live decades in the wild, and can also absorb oxygen, underwater, through their skin. In fact, many species live their entire adult lives underwater. Glad you enjoyed the story!

Oh, and he created the original pair in one day, the fifth one.

107 posted on 01/24/2009 9:51:19 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

big difference between our two statements haha- (I wasn’t looking at your post when I quoted you- Yep- shoulda said ‘rejecting evolution’- however, ‘deviating from anturalism’ explains your claim perfectly wwell- however, you said “Intelligent Design doesn’t need to show who the Designer is or where and how they acted.”

Her’s the point- ID doesn’t need to posit who or what the intelligence behind design is- nor does ANY forensic scientsit- their job is simply to show HOW the intelligence did what they did. ID CAN and does show how, and it also shows enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt, that an intelligence was needed-

You’ve repeatedly said ID apparently must show God, and since they can’t do that, they are not a ligit science- and this is bunk- plain and simple- ID simply has to show evidence an intelligence is needed, and even show HOW God constructed IC- Miller in his failed attempt to refute Behe’s claim of IC, showed HOW the constructs of ID could take place- however, what defeated his argument was the FACT that nature simply is incapable of doing so ESPECIALLY in the trillions of complexity cases throughout species systems that supposedly beat out al lodds and impossibilities- Miller just infact only served to strengthen IC- not refute it- by showing how complex it really is, and how necessarry it is to have an intelligence controlling natural events beyond what they normally do.


108 posted on 01/24/2009 10:11:27 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Ever read up on frogs?

Yep, and I found out that some can hibernate for a couple of months in the mud, but only one that can really live underwater indefinitely. Am I to understand that there were lots of kinds of frogs to begin with, then they all died in the Flood except that one species, and then all the ones we have now came from that one?

109 posted on 01/25/2009 12:35:50 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
their job is simply to show HOW the intelligence did what they did. ID CAN and does show how

Okay, how then? Let's say you're right that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. How was it built?

You’ve repeatedly said ID apparently must show God,

I've never said any such thing. All I've said is that if something was intelligently designed, we should be able to find traces of the designer. Not just an inference from the assertion that nature couldn't have done it, but actual "Wow, here's where the designer intervened"-type evidence. Until you have some--and you don't--ID remains a very weak hypothesis.

110 posted on 01/25/2009 12:44:06 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
those bringign the evidneces are being ‘petulent’

For your sake, CottShop, I hope you do science better than you do typing/spelling. Unfortunately, it appears you do not for whatever reason.

Swell defense for Macroevolution I must tell you.

Your sarcasm tells me that you accept whatever you define as "microevolution." Did you accept such a thing 10 years ago? Why or why not? What is the magic dividing line when a micro (that you evidently accept) becomes a macro and God/Designer/Whatever puts a stop to it?
111 posted on 01/25/2009 5:18:45 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Am I to understand that there were lots of kinds of frogs

You can understand whatever you set your mind to, but your stement above if your own creation.
Frogs are much more capable than your knowledge will allow. For example, how the ones in more hostile climates survive cold winters?
1 "kind" of frog
Many species likely survived the flood without getting on the ark
You should do a little research on frogs before you condescend. One might think you have not a thorough of how true science works.

112 posted on 01/25/2009 7:46:40 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

You’re projecting yet again.


113 posted on 01/25/2009 8:50:58 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Golly gee- Busting on my typing- whatever shall I do?

There’s a saying- that when someone’;s arguments are htin- they then resort to attacking the messenger- You have proven this well

[[What is the magic dividing line when a micro (that you evidently accept) becomes a macro]]

We have discussed this many many many times here on FR- and it has been shown many many many times that Macroeovlution is a totally different biological process than microevolution- if you haven’t caught onto the difference by now, then I’ll not bother repeasting it here as it seems you either won’t accept that htere is a biological differecne- which clearly htere is, or you don’t understand it despite being told many many many times- Not sure what the case is, but either way- you’ll find you answer in many many many posts here on FR- Happy searching


114 posted on 01/25/2009 9:32:24 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[Okay, how then? Let’s say you’re right that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. How was it built?]]

To understand that, you will need to search for the exact biochemical and biological constructs explained by people more qualified than myself- I do know you can find the basics from a number of websites, and from leaders in ID who have discussed hte technical aspects of how these parts are created, what they are made up from, and why nature could not have constructed them.

Taking Miller’s explanation of blood clotting for example- Miller gets into the HOW The various parts and chemical and biological elements are constructed- and what it would take, biologically, for htem to form, and in this he does an excellent job, however his biggest mistake, and what ultimately defeated his own argument, was to show just how much intelligent design was needed to direct the HOW that goes into the construct of the More compelx clotting systems.

I’ve not looked as deeply into the flagellum, into how the cells and parts are constructed, and into what it woudl take to ‘form htem’ naturally, but I have seen soem basic semi-technical explanations, and again, it was clear when I read them that nature simply is incapable of intelligently directed the process as would be absolutely essential in order for the compelted system to arise naturally- The situation was once again akin to someone HAVING TO intelligently construct imaginary pathways, events, and statistics violating scenarios, and having to carefully control and protect hte whole process.

I could just as easily come up with a scenario by takign examples of irreducibly complex items, such as say 1000 newly discovered, intricately carved clay urns, and make hte case that nature ‘could have’ produced these urns IF conditions and forces acting upon natural elements were just right, and IF the whole process was carefully controlled and protected, and I could claim that since ‘simpler versions’ of clay pots (Depressions in mud and clay) exist, then this must mean that the 1000 newly discovered irreducibly complex clay urns are therefore not irreducibly complex- it’s a rediculous arument, but it is exactly what peoplel ike Miller are trying to argue.

If you want to know the HOW for how Ecoli motors are constructed, what chemicals and biological cells and elements that they are made of, how these are all codependent upon one another, and how it would be impossible to remove certain IC parts or controlling mechanisms or directing systems, then there are online technical articles that will discuss this- AND, don’t forget- You will STILL have hte problem of metainfo- species specific metainfo to deal with IF you’re goign to try to make the case for natural evolution of htese motors from ‘simpler versions’ that lack these parts to begin with. I’m looking at an article on Metainfo right now, and quite bluntly, you can’t just be throwing a bunch of new non species specific information into a system WITHOUT FIRST having hte metainfo inplace and functioning, and anticipating changes, so that hte species can thrive without severe consequences of having parts and info foreign to the species introduced- It woudl be like throwing a bunch of random digitial foreign to the program info into a finel\y tuned program, and expectign that it own’t muck up the whole works- there NEEDS to be the metainfo already inpalce, and quite frankly, there is NO evidence that this metainfo can arise AFTER the fact, and htere is NO evidence that it can arise naturally ‘as needed’ which quite frankly puts the whole system of ‘naturalism’ in perril. Stay tuned for further thoughts on this issue-

As a side note- in that “Life’s irreducible structures’ thread, I tried arguing that metainfo ‘might’ be able to arise in a natural stepwise manne, but the more I tried arguing those points, them ore it became evident that nature simpyl could not accomplish this task- When I look at issues, I take BOTH sides to try to find hte weaknesses and strengths of BOTH positions, and I’ve been looking a long time now, and so far, there simply is no reasonable explanation for hte icnredible complexities we see today arising from purely natural means

Miller tried to SEVERELY downplay the fact that changes in a system that are foreigbn to it would need the info already present in order to assimilate and utilize htese changes WITHOUT affectign other parts of hte many many systems involed throughout hte whole species- at ALL levels, and NEVER expolained how those changes might affect them- He simply said, in essence “All it would take is for htis change to haoppen, then this one, then add this to the scenario- blah blah blah, and pretty soon you have an evolved complexity” Yeah? Wekll adding even very small changes, and introducign even very small amounts of info affects NOT just the one item like a cell that you’re tryign to manipulate, but it affects MANY other cells and systems and subsystems as well, and guess what? You would NEED the metainfo ALREADY inplace and anticipating such changes so that it could adjust and alter as needed, all the systems and subsystems WITHOUT negatively affecting the whole system. However, Miller doesn’t delve into this biological fact either because he is unaware of metainfo, or because he wishes to conceal the FACT that addign changes such as he suggests doesn’t simply affect the cell he was tryign to intelligently manipulate, but it woudl affect systems all throuhgout the species.

Miller did a good job explaining how- He just failed to inform you that in order for htese changes to take place, it owuld involve a great deal more than simply manipulating single cells- it woudl take metainfo to deal with ALL the changes that would NEED to tae place so as not to negatively affect the whole system.


115 posted on 01/25/2009 10:07:55 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Golly gee- Busting on my typing- whatever shall I do?

Type better?

it has been shown many many many times that Macroeovlution is a totally different biological process than microevolution

Really? Wow. Although you continue to explain to me how it's been shown a billion times right here on Free Republic, bastion of top flight scientists, I still don't understand. Although not biological, I wonder how you explain all those micro snowflakes that are so, so micro in size and yet, over time, I somehow have a whole lotta "change" in my backyard with all those micro changes on it.

Your odd hangup with evolution is borne solely from your particular brand of Christianity and it only makes you, your particular brand of Christianity, and conservatives in general look downright stupid.

You accept the creationist construct of "microevolution" but refuse to acknowledge that such things (which is what all of evolution is based upon - that is, tiny changes in allele frequencies) over sufficient time yield larger, more noticeable changes. Again, you and your ilk damn well didn't accept what you now call microevolution 10 yrs ago; it is well recorded. But then the science became simply overwhelming for the creationists so two things happened: 1) A subset made up ID/IC, mostly for profit of course and 2) Accepted parts of the TOE, careful to snip out those parts which would - for whatever goofy reason - chip away at their idea of their God, mostly for profit of course.

So now we have all these creationists bleating about trying to claim that "oh yeah, microevolution happens, but not macro." THIS MAKES NO SENSE. I have more respect for the truly nutty YEC/bible literalists because at least they show some sort of consistency, no matter how incorrect.
116 posted on 01/25/2009 10:11:08 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
You should do a little research on frogs before you condescend.

You're right, I shouldn't be condescending if I'm not totally sure of my facts. So apparently you know of some frog species that can survive--breathe and feed, or at least hibernate--for a year under somewhat salty water. I'm always looking to expand my knowledge, so if you can point me to a description of said frogs, I'd appreciate it.

117 posted on 01/25/2009 11:27:13 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Try 'googling' "frogs hibernate underwater".

try
here or here or here

Regarding the somewhat salty water, it is unknown how salty the floodwater may have been. If the oceeans were the same size as currently, then and additional amount of rain and "fountains of the deep" would have diluted it only slightly. However, if the oceans were dramtically smaller, then they would have been significantly diluted. In either case, the oceans salinity varies by location even today, so it likely varied even more so at the flood.

For all of the condemnation of thecreation science, I contend that it has reasonble, valid explanations for what we see in nature.

Since we are being helpful, perhaps you can help me. I am currently researching various radiometric dating methods, and the cross-checking that occurs within different methods. However, all of the cross checking validations I have read about have been on igneous rock, and not on sedimentary rock, which encapsulates the worlds fossils. Could you point me to this?

I have read about the Mt St Helens lava dome rocks that were dated from .35 to 2.8 million years using the potassium-argon method, but were less than 20 years old. The common response is that this method will not work on "known" young samples, but rather only works on "old" samples, and the creationists are intentionally tricking the test for the purpose of propoganda. The response is that "how do you know any rock is "old"". The counter response is crosschecking of dating methods against each other, such as with Argon-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, etc.

I have read a couple of interesting papers on this, but they all focus on igneous rock, not sedimentary. Any additional resources you could provide on this would be most appreciated.

118 posted on 01/25/2009 12:36:18 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
To understand that, you will need to search for the exact biochemical and biological constructs explained by people more qualified than myself- I do know you can find the basics from a number of websites, and from leaders in ID who have discussed hte technical aspects of how these parts are created, what they are made up from, and why nature could not have constructed them.

I've read about the parts that make up the flagellum and blood clotting. Both IDers and mainstream scientists agree about what they're made of and how they work, as far as I know. What I meant by "how" they were constructed is more than that--i.e., not just "the mousetrap is made of a hammer with a spring and a bar to hold down the hammer and a trigger to flip the bar," but "first a wire is bent to make the hammer, then more wire is wound around it to make a spring, then the hammer is attached to a block of wood..." That's the kind of info evolutionary scientists are trying to discover, and it's the thing I want ID to tell me. It's what I mean by "the hand of the designer." Without that, I'll continue to think it's a really weak hypothesis, no matter how often you and others assure me nature couldn't do it--or, if you prefer, that God could not have created nature in such a way that these structures could arise via natural processes.

119 posted on 01/25/2009 12:46:27 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Thanks for the frog pointers. They are similar to some of the ones I'd already found about hibernation. I'm not convinced that we can extrapolate the ability to hibernate for a few months up to the ability to live underwater for an entire year. But I guess I shouldn't dismiss the possibility outright.

From what I've read, the "fountains of the deep" notion and the idea that the oceans used to be a lot smaller a few thousand years ago have their own significant problems, but we don't need to argue that here.

I doubt that I've read anything more on the dating of sedimentary rock than you have. As far as I know, it's inferred from the dates of the igneous rock in and around the sedimentary rock. Most of the quibbles with the accuracy of radiometric dating that I know of have been addressed to my satisfaction; I look forward to reading about the issues with the Mt. St. Helens rock.

120 posted on 01/25/2009 1:05:24 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Regarding frogs, I am not suggesting that they all survived the flood, and I am sure that several species were driven to extinction. However, I am also convinced that speciation (evolution? :) occurs much faster than we suspect. To wit, the sheer number of breeds of dogs that we have today. While in most cases the dogs will revert back to muts if left alone in the wild, some barriers have been erected between the breeds because of sheer size and physiology.

Where we (me the creationist and what I understand to be the typical Macor-Evolutionist) disagree is in the arrival of the different kinds, e.g. frogs, cats, dogs, ducks, finches, camels, etc. I believe they were created from dust on the 5th & 6th days, the Macro Evo believe they all descended from a common ancestor. Whenever I do the research, if one ignores the dating of rocks, the whole hierarchal tree of life system, IMHO, is completely arbitrary and circular, based on the premise that evolution occured. I am not questioning taxonomy per se, but rather the arrangement of "ancestor" and "offsrping" genus'. Amphibians are a good exampl of that.

The lack of a coghesive gelogic column in one place, the overthrusting of "older" layers on top of "younger", and the discovery of "living fossils" (amongst other things) gives me serious concerns about the validity of said system. Hence, my desire to research this whole dating methodology for myself.

121 posted on 01/25/2009 2:31:46 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[That’s the kind of info evolutionary scientists are trying to discover, and it’s the thing I want ID to tell me.]]

you’re in luck- ID does show this

[[Without that, I’ll continue to think it’s a really weak hypothesis, no matter how often you and others assure me nature couldn’t do it—or, if you prefer,]]

You can continue ignoring hte fact that they do do this if you like- no skin off my nose.


122 posted on 01/25/2009 8:28:21 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

[[So now we have all these creationists bleating about trying to claim that “oh yeah, microevolution happens, but not macro.”]]

This is far superior and far more scientific than bleating about how microevolution is hte same as macroevolution when it clearly isn’t.

[[Really? Wow. Although you continue to explain to me how it’s been shown a billion times right here on Free Republic, bastion of top flight scientists, I still don’t understand.]]

No- you can do your own homework- sick and tired of carying your weight for you only to have you simply ignore it

[[Your odd hangup with evolution is borne solely from your particular brand of Christianity]]

Hmmm- Semms my myraid posts would argue otherwise- but agian- you’re free to ignore hte evidneces if you like- just don’t expect to make such false claims and get away with it.

[[You accept the creationist construct of “microevolution” but refuse to acknowledge that such things (which is what all of evolution is based upon - that is, tiny changes in allele frequencies) over sufficient time yield larger, more noticeable changes.]]

These ALL still fall under microevolution- if you don’t understand the difference between Micro and macroevolution, I’m not goign to waste time here explaining it to you when it’s been explained many many many times here on FR.

[[Again, you and your ilk damn well didn’t accept what you now call microevolution 10 yrs ago;]]

Were you born a liar? Or did you just grow into it gradually? Micvroevolution was discovered before Darwin even began to ponder it himself- By a relgious person no less. I’d say that puts acceptance at well over 10 years ago-

[[But then the science became simply overwhelming for the creationists so two things happened: 1) A subset made up ID/IC, mostly for profit of course and 2) Accepted parts of the TOE, careful to snip out those parts which would - for whatever goofy reason - chip away at their idea of their God, mostly for profit of course.]]

This ignorant statement deserves only a pointing out that it’s ignorant and detached fro mthe facts and fro mreality- When you feel you want to step it up a little bit, and discuss issues civily- you just lemme know- till then I’m writing you off as irreleventto any serious discussions about science- Perhaps you can go play with your friends over on DC, and you can all spew ignroant statements al lday long and slap each other on the back pretending it amounts to soemthing- but here- we discuss science


123 posted on 01/25/2009 8:36:17 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[What I meant by “how” they were constructed is more than that—i.e., not just “the mousetrap is made of a hammer with a spring and a bar to hold down the hammer and a trigger to flip the bar,” but “first a wire is bent to make the hammer, then more wire is wound around it to make a spring, then the hammer is attached to a block of wood...”]]

So basically what you want to nkow is how an evolutionist constructs intelligent design to explain away intelligent design? Miller did that very hting- I explained how he constructed intelligently designed constructs while trying to dismiss intelligently designed IC.


124 posted on 01/25/2009 8:39:54 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-124 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