Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
oops! you done it now - now they'll start accusing you of defending "the cult" in order to preserve your livelihood.
just you wait 'n' see
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay...
Oh if scientists do create life, even if it's from the raw elements as precursors, they will calim it as proof of ID. After all, these scientists just designed life so how does that counter the ID claims? </ sarcasm>
Seriosly, they will twist things, like they always do, to fit their preconceptions. You cannot argue with closed minds.
Your bovine discharge clearly proves that if Intelligent Design really existed it wasn't applied to everyone.
If, at the instant before the big bang, there was no time, then did it really have a cause?
The scientific arguments as well as the theological and philosophical ones: http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net//evolution.html.
Wow.
Yet another crevo thread.
Haven't seen one of these in a while.
This has been found to be a common thread among the avid evolutionists.
It's as though they are scared to death of acknowledging any entity who can, with valid authority, pass judgment on their morals, so they do whatever they can to "prove" that God does not exist.
In the long run, if people of faith are wrong, they are no worse off than the evolutionists. If, however, the atheistic evolutionists are wrong, they have a hell to pay.
Looking back at your posts, I am assuming that you are both an atheist and an evolutionist. If that is not correct, please forgive me. However, my question is based on those assumptions.
For the sake of this question, let's assume your position is true. Through some natural process life formed on earth and all the life we observe today developed over billions of years of evolution.
So my question is, why is it that you spend any time at all either defending your position or attacking alternative positions? Not just on evolution/creation but on any subject? In other words, why do you care?
The lion on the African plain is at the mercy of natural selection because it doesn't know any better. However, we do. In our case, the cat is out of the bag. Procreating in order to continue your line is actually pointless and serves no end because there is no end to serve. When it comes down to it, "survival of the fitness" may work well to "strengthen the herd", so to speak, but we both know such strengthening is really meaningless. Evolution may provide the process but it offers nothing in terms of purpose.
So, again, why do care about anything? All is vanity. I fail to see how existence is preferable to non-existence. How does one who is an atheist and an evolutionist not become a secular existentialist? Back to specifics, what do you hope to achieve by coming on FR and debating? Given that any such argument is ultimately completely meaningless, I wonder why you show up?
So you are scared that scientists might create life and damage your theory? But I thought only God could create life. What do you have to be scared of?
Look outside your window...you have available to you the biggest cosmic "Duh" of proof ever.
Intelligent Design is the only scientific theory that makes sense.
Yes, I know not all will agree with Gods creation and the self-evident nature of it all...but thats cool. We arent judged on whether we enter heavan becuase of it.
That test requires different answers thankfully.
Id is conservatism's DU.
To refer to this post as "horse manure" is an insult to horse manure!
Wow! What a conclusion to make because there are disagreements on how life (and the universe) began. Just what technical prowess is being hurt so bad that we are being shortchanged? What technology is being hurt? Are computers not as good as they could be? How about medicine?
This is not science for science's sake, it's a wondering of where we came from and serves no other valuable purpose than to either validate the existence of a Creator, or to undermine the existence of a Creator. In essence, it is a religion/anti-religion battle that has no affect on the sciences that move and shake the world, yet those who love science more than God are quick to take umbrage over those who prefer to believe in God as the source for us all. Let's face it, without a good explanation for where it all started, anything else is just a guess. Some of us prefer to guess that the bible explains it and others prefer to guess that it somehow happened without intervention.
At any rate, unless you can use the scientific method to prove that believing in Creationism vs. Evolution is harmful to our technical prowess, you might want to reconsider how you state your arguments.
God Bless.
Why would anyone spend time defending what is true?
Science is the process of accumulating knowledge through observation, hypothesis and research aimed at testing the hypothesis. Science assumes that observable phenomena can be analyzed as the result of sequences of observable phenomena. Call it laws of nature or natural causes -- whatever. The history of science is the history of investigating this assumption.
Science does not assume supernatural causes for the simple reason that they do not suggest any research. The ID movement does not suggest any research. It's a dead end.
Science is a very flawed field of study (as history has shown), and the scientific method is flawed as well. Evolution is a very flawed theory, regardless of whether ID fits into the flawed study of science or not.
Most of the arguments from that link seem to be along the lines of “it’s complicated…therefore God did it”. Is it too much to ask for something a little more specific?
You remember wrong.
As to the 'mathematical proof'. There is no such thing. All I've seen is someone pulling a statistical analysis (out of their @#$%) of something that no one claims to understand. It's a correllary of the ID axiom that anything we don't understand is 'irreducibly complex'. Anything we don't understand is very improbable.
The final flaw in the statistical analysis is ignoring the numerator. The IDers spend pages constructing a flawed probability model for the simplest life forming (ignoring the fact that we don't know what the simplest life is). They finish with a 'viola, life is this improbable on earth' then ignore the number of planets in the universe life could have formed on.
By that arguement none of us can be here. The odds that the sperm containing our genetic information could fertilize an ovum are so small as to be laughable.
Only religion claims perfection (not that they have it). If something can't be addressed with the scientific method it is not science.
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.