Skip to comments.
‘Healthy skepticism’ bill appears to be ailing [Intelligent Design in Missouri]
Kansas City Star ^
| 02 April 2006
| KIT WAGAR and TIM HOOVER
Posted on 04/02/2006 9:35:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
We can't go on agreeing like this
I am going to bed
61
posted on
04/02/2006 7:50:29 PM PDT
by
WKB
(Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
To: editor-surveyor
"What a feeble argument. Nothing has 'watered down' science as much as pushing the statistically devastated philosophy of evolution as 'science.'" Nice word soup. What does 'statistically devastated' mean?
62
posted on
04/02/2006 7:53:39 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
To: WKB
"So what you are saying is there are doubts about the theory of evolution?? There is no doubt within science about the SToE. It is a well tested and verified science. There are minor questions about a number of the mechanisms contained by the SToE, such as the relative roles natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection and drift play in directing the frequency of alleles within a population. There are also questions about the ability of natural selection alone to produce macro-evolution. Those, and a few other questions are well known and quite visible, no scientist is attempting to hide them.
63
posted on
04/02/2006 8:08:22 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
To: b_sharp
Sounds pretty MAJOR to me!!!
64
posted on
04/02/2006 8:13:56 PM PDT
by
WKB
(Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
To: WKB
"Sounds pretty MAJOR to me!!!" Why? There are many other mechanisms that can work individually or in concert.
65
posted on
04/02/2006 8:19:27 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
To: WKB
Is that the new name for evos? Is that your best attempt at troll logic?
66
posted on
04/02/2006 8:27:37 PM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
The problem isn't real scientists: The problem is the proliferation of psuedo-scientists, and the support that they receive in the form of silence from the scientific community at large--and the scientific community here on FR--when they start worshipping nutjobs like Pianka.
Meeting Doctor Doom(Saving the Earth with Ebola)
67
posted on
04/02/2006 8:43:01 PM PDT
by
demoRat watcher
(Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
To: WKB
So what you are saying is there are doubts about the theory of evolution??
There is "doubt" about all science. The error is in attempting to use faulty semantics to suggest that there is more "doubt" about evolution than there is about anything else within science, when this is not the case.
68
posted on
04/02/2006 8:58:02 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: demoRat watcher
So they have 2 semester of General Chem instead of 4, like pre-med students have. Big deal. I personally have known professors of Biochemistry, Quantum Mechanics, and Astronomy with Ph.Ds to spare who think nothing of homosexual marriage, polygamy, pornography, abortion on demand, etc etc. Do you think 2 more semesters of Organic is going to steer them toward the light?
Also..so they take one semester of Cal.. Big deal. Many, many medical schools don't even require ONE semester (Harvard, Yale, being the exception).
69
posted on
04/02/2006 9:29:32 PM PDT
by
Windsong
(Jesus Saves, but Buddha makes incremental backups)
To: Windsong
Exactly Bump,
How many semesters of anything actually steers a soul to the light?
Wolf
70
posted on
04/02/2006 11:00:27 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: b_sharp; WKB
So as to toe, the mechanisms are unknown (minor questions) but 'the theory' is a well tested and verified science.
Sounds pretty mushy and contradictory. What say you?
Wolf
71
posted on
04/02/2006 11:20:01 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: shuckmaster; WKB
/Is that the new name for evos?/
Is that your best attempt at troll logic?
Well it sure beats out anything you have ever put out, don't it shuck?
Think this would be a good time to come out with all that 'expressive imagery' you have in the 'back pocket'?
Now don't worry shuck, you have carte-blanche. I wont 'come back' at you on this one, it just might be seen as a 'personal attack' And we don't HAVE ANY OF THAT AROUND HERE., now do we?
Wolf
72
posted on
04/02/2006 11:26:32 PM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RunningWolf
73
posted on
04/02/2006 11:52:26 PM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: shuckmaster
paranoid much?
I will put it this way.., obtuse much?
If I put your idea of 'fun or humor' back at you as to mock Confederate heritage, I doubt you would find it very funny etc.
But I will not do that for several reasons, for one as having a TX/AK heritage from the 1840's.
Just what is your message anyway?
Wolf
74
posted on
04/03/2006 12:11:44 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: shuckmaster
Correction, I will put it this way back at you to "obtuse much?"
W.
75
posted on
04/03/2006 12:17:02 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: Dimensio; WKB
to suggest that there is more "doubt" about evolution than there is about anything else within science, when this is not the case
The caveat that is apparent to all but you, is the 'no doubt' exists only in your mind (or perhaps the minds) that adhere to this cult.
Wolf
76
posted on
04/03/2006 12:34:13 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: Dimensio; shuckmaster; b_sharp; RunningWolf
There is "doubt" about all science.
Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then.
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves,
etc etc etc.
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and
the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
Rom. 10:13 for, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
77
posted on
04/03/2006 3:32:52 AM PDT
by
WKB
(Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
To: WKB
Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then.
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.
Nope, just contradictions, misconceptions and outright inaccuracies.
The Bible is great philosophy, and a wonderful faith, but a lousy science text.
78
posted on
04/03/2006 7:08:45 AM PDT
by
highball
(Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
To: WKB
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.
As I have said before, a claim is not strengthened merely because of a lack of conditional or tentative terms in it. Your reasoning for accepting "God's Holy Word" over observed reality is fallacious.
79
posted on
04/03/2006 8:08:05 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: RunningWolf
"So as to toe, the mechanisms are unknown (minor questions) but 'the theory' is a well tested and verified science." First let's restore the context of my statement so that readers of the post can see how you've purposely misquoted me.
"There is no doubt within science about the SToE. It is a well tested and verified science. There are minor questions about a number of the mechanisms contained by the SToE, such as the relative roles natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection and drift play in directing the frequency of alleles within a population. There are also questions about the ability of natural selection alone to produce macro-evolution. Those, and a few other questions are well known and quite visible, no scientist is attempting to hide them.""
The mechanisms are known, the degree to which each contributes in a specific situation is in question. Further, since it is virtually impossible to be sure all mechanisms are known, there is some speculation that there may be currently unknown mechanisms that contribute in certain circumstances. This concern is held by the minority of biologists where the majority feel we have an excellent grasp of the major mechanisms. Is there more to learn about evolution? Absolutely. Are there questions about what is known of evolution. Many. Is this unusual in the sciences? Not at all, answering and formulating new questions is what science is all about and any representation of science as other than this is at best misguided and at worst prevarication.
In the future I would prefer if you kept your vacuous, logically inept, and largely incomprehensible posts to yourself.
80
posted on
04/03/2006 8:34:13 AM PDT
by
b_sharp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 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