Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
Patrick, I think the best way to deal with abusive posters is simply to not respond to them. That's the way I handle it!
BTW, Merry Christmas! I'm glad we've been able to disagree agreeably!
Hahahahahahaha!!! That's precisely the image I get, Alamo-Girl! Taxonomy run amok!!!
"From 'them?'" Though uninvited, may I hazard a reply? What slurs? What whining? What attacks? Prove the "mistakes" of your opponent: and then, if they amount to a hill of beans, maybe if fairly persuaded by your carefully qualified evidence and rigorous reasoning, he'd thus be courteous enough to admit them....
Rhetoric only goes so far. So speak in particulars please, so that your objections may be out in the open clearly enough to be publicly refuted.
Absolutely hysterical, A-G!!! Anyone reading this who hasn't seen post #6 go look -- and LYBO!!!
"See, if 100% of the scientific community believes that evolution is correct, then how many scientists would disagree that evolution is correct? "
Nitpicky much? Sheesh, maybe I just don't feel like writing 99.999999% everytime.
"It's funny you mention gravity and relativity. Reminds me of an article I read once... "
I'm glad you brought this up, by the way, einstein did NOT disprove newtonian physics, he expounded on it. Big difference pal. Regardless, newtonian physics was replaced by SCIENTISTS, and it was replaced by another, more explanatory SCIENTIFIC theory.
Note the capitalizations there. I have never said evolution is an absolute truth. Absolute truths are not an option in science, they are a lame construct to support a dogma. If evolution is disproven, or a better theory is brought to light tomorrow, like relativity, it will be replaced by SCIENTISTS, with a better SCIENTIFIC theory.
If you knew science you would know that this is the most pwerful element of science, it's self correcting nature. No other institution shares this trait, especially the church with its dumb absolute truths.
Until this new SCIENTIFIC theory comes along, evolution is the best explanatory model. ID is not even in the same room as evolution.
Posts # 4,5, and 172 were typical slurs on those who accept the TOE. Posts # 44 and 165 were repetitions of the "charicature" of the TOE that the creationists spin, and which have been refuted hundreds of times on these threads. Oh, #99 was a particularly bad one, too.
That was just in 200 posts.
While I do admit that some on the Evo side get rough, it is only a few individuals. On the Creo side, we see a continuous, multi-thread effort to repeat the same lies, distortions, and charicatures of the TOE, and the same debunked objections to it, as we've seen for years. Devastating evidence has been introduced on the Evo side; to my knowledge, no Creo has ever indicated that he might have been wrong in its face, or even that he might have been misinformed.
"Since ID has not been taught for many, many years in public schools but evolution has been taught over and over inserted into almost every subject is it no wonder that ID is not understood or believed by many scientist today."
Whoa, we aren't talking about a 'good idea' here. If evolution didn't work, researchers from all life sceinces would know tomorrow. Evolution is NOT a static model. It makes predictions. Scientists use thes epredictions, same way they use the predictions made by gravity (ie, things fall when you drop them). If these predictions did not work, then it would be very obvious, very quickly.
For instance, do a search for 'Pikaia.' It's a stochastic method for minnimizing/maximizing a function, based on natural selection. I used this algorithm to minimize a function for optimizing ballistic trajectories in a computer program. We also implemented 2 purely mathematical, deterministic algorithms, downhill simplex and golden search. Pikaia found the best answer for a function with 18 inputs QUICKER than the purely mathematical models. Ok, if you are not a mathematician or engineer, that likely doesn't make sense, but it worked. If evolution was a hoax, there is no way it would work better than mathematical models to solve a complex problem like minimizing a function with 18 inputs each with at least 10 decimal places. That is a very, very complicated problem.
We could teach scientists ID when they are young, but when they get older and realize ID has no predictive power, they would quickly dismiss it as unscientific, just like they do now.
A more important high level observation of the creo/evo debate is that the debate always revolves around EVOLUTION. Why? Because evolution is an actual theory with data nd research and predictions, whereas creationsim 1.0 and 2.0 (ID) have no data, research or predictions to defend!
Somehow the huge explanatory model of evolution is suspect, but the contrary explanation of "god dunnit," never seems to raise any eyebrows among evangelical christians.
I'd like to see a good debate on what ID explains and predicts, like the debates we have on evolution... oh wait, ID doesn't explain or predict ANYTHING, because it is not real science like evolution!
Some fundamentalists are still smarting from Supreme Court descisions regarding school prayer and other religious displays in government schools. They want, it seems, ALL students exposed to any form of religion possible, with more to follow if available. Note, they still have every right to teach their own children whatever they wish; what they want is to be able to teach OURS. It's why I noted that the vast, overwhelming majority of creationists are from only one or two sects of fundamentalist Christianity. This is NOT a broad-based movement.
For those of more modest faith and honest hearts, the problem is three words..."In His Image", which they take to mean as an image of God himself. This grants humans high superiority over the beasts and the dominion of the world by definition, in addition to providing great amounts of comfort. If the evidence challenges this, well, it might, for some, be difficult to deal with.
Many really do not understand the implications of "Goddidit".
For example, a scientist who, as they wish, takes something supernatural into his deliberations, might one day be researching something of critical importance to humanity, only to find a null area for which he cannot account through standard means. If he says, "Oh, well, Goddidit!", he then halts his search for the information. It's a massive cop-out, which precludes further investigation.
I am continuously amazed that, lacking any substantial evidence to support ID, ID proponents invariably, and without fail, resort to attacking evolution and those that know evolution as fact. When you have no case, attack and distract to the point your opponent must defend his/herself thereby completely fogging over the real issue.
Uh, huh. ID sure stands on its own merits, don't it?
??? Can you 'splain it to me as if I had no idea what you're talking about?
Duuuuuuuude....
Chillllllll.......
I was simply stating that I can figure out which posts the creationistas will IGNORE because they can't respond to them intellectually. Capisci?
The constant derision of fundamentalist Christians in these threads, combined with the general condescending attitude towards us, makes me think I'm reading DU.
Did it ever occur to you that many of us simply don't think it's possible for the diversity of life on earth to be the result of countless random mutations? Is it an established fact that we're wrong about this? Can it be demonstrated that we're wrong about this?
We're dealing here with highly speculative material. We haven't even scratched the surface on the origins of species. Every theory being tossed around today on this subject could end up abandoned a century from now.
Just look at the issue of where life came from to begin with. Evolutionists here go out of their way to insist that issue isn't part of evolutionary theory. I don't blame them but it does go to show how ignorant all of us are about events that happened long ago which we can't observe. Have we ever observed life forms that reproduce by splitting become, over time, life forms that have two sexes and reproduce sexually? No, how could we? Yet, it's speculated that it happened.
Fine. Speculate away, but don't get carried away and assume evolution is a done deal. Theorizing that assorted things happened without even coming close to demonstrating that they did is well within the realm of scientific inquiry but it's not a foundation from which to declare those who are skeptical to be nitwits.
Sorry if I'm ranting. Merry Christmas! :-)
Please give a specific definition of love and justice. It should include a test for the presence of love (or justice) and a way to determine which of two systems contains more love (or justice). It should ideally also provide an absolute measurement scale so that ANY system could be given a number that represents the love (or justice) content of that system.
I would claim that ID by the nature of the idea itself posits a deity. (Although not necessarily the Christian God) I have posted this argument a few times and have never had a response from an ID proponent:
ID is the idea that life cannot evolve without the guidance of some intelligent designer. Presumably "life" would include intelligent life. Therefore, in order for intelligence to exist, there must be a designer. However, if this is true, where did the intelligent designer come from? There are two possibilities. First possibility: there must be another, even more intelligent designer who designed the intelligent designer, in which case where did THAT designer come from? This leads to an infinite regression of intelligent designers. Second possibility: the intelligent designer must have either created itself or must have existed eternally. In this case, I think most people would recognize this entity as a deity, although maybe not one with all the characteristics of the Christian God.
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.