Skip to comments.
"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper
Reuters via Yahoo! ^
| 01/19/06
| Tom Heneghan
Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 601-606 next last
To: munin
Are you suggesting that ID, as proposed by Behe, proposes a mechanism for the intervention of the designer identical or reasonably similar to that of genetic engineering firms?
181
posted on
01/19/2006 4:19:40 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum; Right Wing Professor
I guess that you must be sarcasm-impaired.Ability to detect sarcasm is a sign of intelligence. For such an ostentiously intelligent person, you sure are dim.
Are you seriously saying that your original post was meant as sarcasm? Let's take a look at it in its entirety:
The entire evolution vs ID debate is an aberration caused by the fact that freedom of speech, or any other kind of freedom, has been eliminated in government schools. ID was invented as a way of combatting the fact that public schools have become little more than Demo(n)cRAT indoctrination camps.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot seem to read that in any way that sounds sarcastic. What it does sound like is someone who accidentally conveyed a true thought without realizing that it exposed an ulterior motive that they would have preferred to keep hidden. And then, of course, tried to cover it up by claiming that it was just a joke.
182
posted on
01/19/2006 4:23:16 PM PST
by
Antonello
(Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
To: jec41
Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong?
First insult of the thread marker.
AntiEvo 1
184
posted on
01/19/2006 4:37:25 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: DarkSavant
Galileo didn't have the evidence to prove Copernicus' theory, but wanted the Vatican to change their interpretation anyways. A greak book on it was "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler But he did. A prediction of the Copernicus theory was that Venus would be ween to go through phases. This was visible with Galileo's telescope.
185
posted on
01/19/2006 4:39:31 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: b_sharp
First insult of the thread marker.
AntiEvo 1
I'd say post #4 was the first one. Looked like a anticipatory swipe at creationists to me.
To: xmission
Evil is simply the absence of God.
Cute but not logically deducted or scientific. First the student uses science to prove darkness and cold do not exist. Lacking the scientific evidence to prove that evil does not exist he recites a philosophical deduction that can neither be proved or disproved which makes it opinion or speculation. Its called bait and switch. However the professor's argument was no better for he only presented a philosophical deducted proof which has been refuted by another philosophical deducted proof. It remains a philosophical debate and anyone schooled in the sciences and philosophy would or should detect the students error.
187
posted on
01/19/2006 4:44:30 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: plain talk
Speciation has been observed. Try Google next time, before coming to a thread with misinformation.
188
posted on
01/19/2006 4:47:37 PM PST
by
Quick1
To: peyton randolph
This should drive the subsection of creationists that hate Catholics batty!
Good for the Vatican! ID is a joke.
To: jcb8199; CarolinaGuitarman
Problem is, Galileo was a scientist who started attacking the interpretation of the Bible when he was questioned about the heliocentric model. He didn't attack. He was defending his work against attacks by those who said it was contrary to scripture. In defending his work, he said that if scripture appears to be in conflict with what we clearly see, then we must be reading it wrong. That, no doubt, offended the Church, but the telescope existed, and the evidence of the solar system existed, and Galileo was was doing the Church a favor by offering them a way out of an embarrassing situation. Eventually, the Church adopted Galileo's position. But it took them over three centuries.
Right or not, he was not a theologian, and that is what got him in trouble--with Protestants and Catholics alike.
I didn't know he was in trouble with Protestants.
Again, Copernicus came up with the heliocentric model, and received accolades from the Church...
As CarolinaGuitarman points out, Copernicus withheld publication of that work until after his death. Intentionally. He understood the times in which he lived.
190
posted on
01/19/2006 4:49:09 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: jec41
First the student uses science to prove darkness and cold do not exist. Lacking the scientific evidence to prove that evil does not exist he recites a philosophical deduction that can neither be proved or disproved which makes it opinion or speculation.
I agree that this old email isn't right for scientific argument, and I did try to say so. I do however believe that evil is the absence of GOD, and that the email does help to understand why GOD is not responsible for the evil of man.
To: jcb8199
Perhaps I should have said "mankind invented the measurement of time--as in minutes, hours, days, years..."
Maybe you should have because in some primitive tribes that inhabit islands off of Indonesia time is absent and the concept of time does not exist.
192
posted on
01/19/2006 4:51:58 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: All
Our local cable station has been having a 007 fest, so in light of the evolution from Sean Connery to who knows who next, I am taking a pole:
1. Best Bond Girl
2. Best Bond movie.
3. Greatest name.
So to start it off:
1. Kissy Suzuki http://www.jamesbond.com/mmpr/index.php?cat=girls&id=suzuki
2. Hard to say, so many were quite forgettable, but I'll go for Goldfinger
3. Pussy Galore, hands down.
To: PatrickHenry
would be ween Aaarrrghhhh! "would be seen"
194
posted on
01/19/2006 4:52:32 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry; jcb8199
"As CarolinaGuitarman points out, Copernicus withheld publication of that work until after his death. Intentionally. He understood the times in which he lived."
And, it should be stated again, there was an introduction to Copernicus' book that said that his model was not to be mistaken for reality. He didn't it write this intro, his printer, Andreas Osiander, inserted it without Copernicus' permission. It may have been just as well, because the book would have been burned if it claimed that the Earth moved.
195
posted on
01/19/2006 4:53:47 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
"would be ween"
I thought it was an old English affectation. :)
196
posted on
01/19/2006 4:54:57 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: DarkSavant
Galileo didn't have the evidence to prove Copernicus' theory, but wanted the Vatican to change their interpretation anyways.Ormaybe he just wanted to publish his ideas without being arrested and threatened with torture.
197
posted on
01/19/2006 4:55:02 PM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: jcb8199
And I think it has been answered--evil comes from an absence of God. We reject God when we sin. Thus, WE create evil
Philosophy and opinion determines evil and it different in every society.
198
posted on
01/19/2006 4:57:59 PM PST
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: furball4paws
pole = poll
and I'll whack myself over the head with it, too.
To: xmission
Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong? The evolution of a species is at the population level, not the individual level. On one hand, a single variation in the genetic makeup of one member of a species may very well simply end up being a recessive trait. It also might never even spread with any significance throughout the species population. There is even the possibility that the altered gene doesn't even get spread into the general population at all. For example the originating individual, or its offspring, might not get the chance to reproduce.
On the other hand, if that one change is not malignant in terms of survival in the current environment and the ability to reproduce, then chances are it could at least become an ubiquitous trait displayed by some portion of the population. If the change actually provides some benefit to survival or reproductive success then over time it is even more likely to be propagated.
200
posted on
01/19/2006 5:01:01 PM PST
by
Antonello
(Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 601-606 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson