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

Skip to comments.

What is wrong with intelligent design?
EurekAlert! ^ | 22-Feb-2007 | Suzanne Wu

Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen

In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.

Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.

ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.

A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.

This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.

Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.

"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow … ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories – theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.

Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.

###

Sober, Elliott. "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design," The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.

Since 1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology has been dedicated to providing insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevo; crevolist; evolution; fsmdidit; goddidit; id; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; itsapologetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 601-649 next last
To: timer

I am not sure your post was intended for me as I feel as if I am reading something from the middle of an ongoing discussion.

What you said does not appear to address any comments I made earlier, so this is the only conclusion I can draw.

Do you really believe that the feeding of five thousand families was done with scientific technology by aliens? I hope you are being sarcastic.

Nor did a PETA Group accomplish the incarnation. The virgin birth and the miracles of Christ, along with His teaching, were carried out by the power of the Holy Spirit. That you would lightly remark about such a serious subject matter reflects badly upon your spiritual condition.

I AM ALARMED for you. Beware that you do not harden yourself to the message of the gospel to the point you make blasphemous comments about the Holy Spirit. For this sin there is no remedy.

I do not need to learn from the shroud of Turin. I have a more sure word of prophecy on which to rely.

The first commandment is for God to be first. It is expressed in several ways which can be summed up as "love God". The second commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself. All of God's commandments are expressions of these two commandments, as the Lord instructed.


451 posted on 03/19/2007 7:13:27 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

I take it then that you are too proud and wise to look at the "fabber", a 3D coping machine recently developed at Cornell University. They see but do not PERCEIVE saith Jesus. God gave you a brain to think with but sadly you lack the understanding that is possible with that brain.

Love God, Love your neighbor. Both phrases use the word LOVE. Do you not know that what you call "love" is rooted in the bose inclusion statistics of quantum mechanics? And that "hate" is rooted in the pauli exclusion principle?

I guess "unlearner" fits you best, you refuse to learn anything new. And yet...know it all's...never really do...know it all...do they?


452 posted on 03/19/2007 7:29:28 PM PDT by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan; Admin Moderator

Hi, Medved. Back again?


453 posted on 03/20/2007 4:24:30 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

yes even the muslims and buhdist all hunabists for that matter and I dont care what the Pope knows, and when I say Christ has come I mean the first time. And when I sat every knee will bow it will be when Christ returns or when you die which ever comes first. Take off the blinders!


454 posted on 03/20/2007 4:53:28 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

A cat scan you say? by an MRI machine that was invented by a creation scientist! Dr. Raymond Damadian. In which He was jipped out of the nobel peace prize and money and they gave it to his assistants who were evolutionists. More dishinesty from the evolutisms.


455 posted on 03/20/2007 4:56:59 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Doesnt make a bit of difference your point is petty I listed dozens and could list hundreds more scientists who are creationists, besides even in francis Bacons time there were atheistic view points, but that doesnt make a hill of beens difference, like isaid its a petty point. Peace!


456 posted on 03/20/2007 5:00:13 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

The people from the lists Ive posted noe of them fit the claims?, you need to try again and look a little closer!


457 posted on 03/20/2007 5:03:16 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

If all you ever new was the dessert lived in the desseert since you were born SON and I came to you and said some day you will see a place with these things that come out of the ground and theres a substance that flows and there are growths of color of all varieties. well you might say thats mythology! but the growths that come out of the ground are trees, and the substance that flows is water, and the growths of color of all varieties are flowers, isnt so mythological anymore is it! If you deem something mythological because it seems bizarre to you, then the very world we live in should be mythological to you but yet here it is before your very eyes, but you are use to it because God has made you comfortable in it and it has become routine for you, but it is every bit as marvelous.


458 posted on 03/20/2007 5:11:11 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Why is it any more unrealistic that you get to talk as it would be for a donkey, who said you can talk but not a donkey? who made it this way? If you have the knowledge let me know! Tell me why all animals are unlearned compared to us? speak and dont hold back, so we can all be enlightened, let us know what you know and not us!

Is it just because you havent seen it so, or because you cant comprehend it? Who gave you not only the ability to speak but the mind to converse, both remarkable traits and at the same time and with the very same creature how does this happen by chance? Please in all your wisdom dont hold back! Tell me and I will apologise for my ignorance! Dont hold back the secrets of your wisdom, tell us as Steven J gould has about how the pandas thumb isnt sufficient enough, he must be all knowing as you, to be able to point out just what isnt good enough, thats as dumb as saying it would be better if we had an arm in our back so we could do more tasks, so therefore the body has some flaws! So do tell us in your infinite wisdom you and Steven J Gould tell us how it should be!


459 posted on 03/20/2007 5:24:29 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Im not!


460 posted on 03/20/2007 5:26:07 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I never claimed science to show you God, I said science backs up the bible,(that tells you alot) do you think God is hiding behind the moon? Guess what! He dont think like you! your lack is what looks behind the moon. And then says in its arrogance I looked behind the moon and I didnt see God, so there fore Ive solved a great mystery. Do you think God who made all, is going to say to you, oops you found me I was behind the moon? I was trying to hide but you were to good for me, you were smarter than I.

Dont be so arrogant!


461 posted on 03/20/2007 5:37:40 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Is Gumlegs english, have to admit that name is hilarious! sorry if thats your real name!


462 posted on 03/20/2007 5:42:27 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Ive shown you countless times in the past posts, support for Intelligent design and isuggest that anyone wanting to see go back and look at past posts. Its been mostly science.


463 posted on 03/20/2007 5:45:24 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

It most certainly isnt lame, what stingray has said is absolutly correct!!!!

Your name is scrutiniser, well you should scrutinise in the mirror at least you would be more accurate!


464 posted on 03/20/2007 5:48:51 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Back in post #393 you stated: No oh arrogant one, science just supports Intelligent design!

Now in #463 you claim:

Ive shown you countless times in the past posts, support for Intelligent design and isuggest that anyone wanting to see go back and look at past posts. Its been mostly science.

You have posted apologetics, not science. You may not be able to tell the difference, but scientists can.

And you are still ducking my original question: How many "intelligent designers" were there, and what is your justification for your answer?

If you have so much science at your disposal, you should at least be able to answer that question.

465 posted on 03/20/2007 5:52:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

ooooooh

Your name is wakeup.

You should wakeup and use your brain.

lame


466 posted on 03/20/2007 5:53:18 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

No what stingray has said is excellent!!!! If you claim something is poor then you at the same time are claiming that you know all variables concerning what is best, or what would be better, and when it come to natural things ive never seen man make it better than its natural state. Man cant even make mechanical things efficiently. Man always has to repair what he makes because it falls apart it dont heal itself or even have the capabiloity too, but this same man is gonna come along and say, Oh the pandas thumb there, that will never do. Talk about funny and lame!


467 posted on 03/20/2007 5:59:53 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

How many time do I have to bear with the war is bout oil, and Bushes oil interests. That is so childish its ridiculous, no one becomes the president of the united states so they can build up their personal oil interests. thats just so ridiculous. Get a clue my friend! When hitler was in power you same type came back with, we neglected jumping right in there and save those from the concentration camps, and then when its now its all together different, why dont you folks just try and be a little honest, and come right out and say you dont like bush because he is generaly a more moral stance president! He gives side to the more moral and for that reason alone you dont like him, it has nothing to do with any war.


468 posted on 03/20/2007 6:05:48 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

wrong again Halblaub, look at statistics 20 30 40 50 60 70 years ago and there is a tremendous difference in the way we live, also to mention, when ever you have to have a man made invention and then try to call it safe or a normal or natural way of doing things, then you are kidding yourself. If you do things the way God said to do them then you dont suffer phsycologicaly or physicaly, I.e. homosexual behaiviour has an extrememly high rate of drug use, alchoholic,disease and suicide. And who are those who get diseases those who dont hold to Gods principles, that includes non gays. you cant have an invention and then calim it natural. Because that just aint natural. If something is dangerous without the supposed safety assistance of a mans invention/condom then that tells you it aint normal/natural. Peace!

Gods principles are 100% fail proof. It is seen everywhere and has stood the test of time.


469 posted on 03/20/2007 6:16:17 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

Dude, your premise is wrong, no man ever says he is creating life or a panda's thumb.

It was a silly side argument that meant nothing.

So, stick to the fables, and let real scientists do the thinking.


470 posted on 03/20/2007 6:20:35 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Panzerfaust

"Why do people assume "intelligent design" refers to some god? Space aliens are as likely a source of the intelligence as a god. Or does the ID theory specify "god"? I've heard of ID but have not read about it and I'm curious to know if a god is the only assignee of the intelligence behind intelligent design"

The possibility of intelligent life on other planets, other universes and even other dimensions is extremely high. The bible says God is light or in other words energy. Einstein proved energy can be converted into matter and vice-versa. I think about where mankind began and realize we are very close to our consciesness (energy) being able to go or be whatever we want it to be. Imagine people a even 200 years trying to fathom such things. I believe in God or an originator of the design. Genesis tells a story of evolution from fish in the sea first, to flying creatures of the air, to reptiles then mammals then modern man.


471 posted on 03/20/2007 6:47:35 PM PDT by iThinkBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
yes even the muslims and buhdist all hunabists for that matter

Well that's good to know. For a moment I figured you for a 'nuke 'em all and led god sort them out'.

and I dont care what the Pope knows

No Catholics, eh? Pity.

... and when I say Christ has come I mean the first time.

So the last hour is not the real last hour. Gotit. A cat scan you say? by an MRI machine that was invented by a creation scientist! Dr. Raymond Damadian. In which He was jipped out of the nobel peace prize and money and they gave it to his assistants who were evolutionists. More dishinesty from the evolutisms.

Yes a CAT scan. It uses X-rays, not magnetic fields such as the MRI... --and check your nomenclature, the prize is 'Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine' not the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.
They don't award it for incomplete work, or patents, or whining in the NY Times as was as done by Raymond Damadian.

but the growths that come out of the ground are trees, and the substance that flows is water, and the growths of color of all varieties are flowers, isnt so mythological anymore is it! If you deem something mythological because it seems bizarre to you, then the very world we live in should be mythological to you but yet here it is before your very eyes, but you are use to it because God has made you comfortable in it and it has become routine for you, but it is every bit as marvelous.

Indeed it is marvelous. But we're past the stage where God's semen is needed to produce the plants and trees.
ditto for the Pharaoh.
and the High Priest.
and the Shaman.

Why is it any more unrealistic that you get to talk as it would be for a donkey, who said you can talk but not a donkey?

So you think the story of 'Balaam's ass' (Numbers 22:28) is a factual truth?

472 posted on 03/20/2007 7:48:26 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
And when I sat every knee will bow it will be when Christ returns or when you die which ever comes first.

If I'm going to be condemned to Hell anyway, why should I bother bowing first?

473 posted on 03/20/2007 8:01:46 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Well, the KJV of the Bible, mentions a 'unicorn', several times, I have been told by those who take every word of the KJV of the Bible as being literal, that if those 'unicorns' were mentioned, then they must have been real, and better yet, they may still be around...Yeah, right..


474 posted on 03/20/2007 8:21:54 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

You said...

"A cat scan you say? by an MRI machine that was invented by a creation scientist! Dr. Raymond Damadian. In which He was jipped out of the nobel peace prize and money and they gave it to his assistants who were evolutionists. More dishinesty from the evolutisms."

You have made so many factual errors, and so many spelling errors...I did not think it was possible for anyone to make so many errors in such a short post, but you have done it....

Are you actually for real?...are you trying to give a bad rap to all creationists?...because you are doing a great job at just that...





475 posted on 03/20/2007 8:32:14 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
Well, the KJV of the Bible, mentions a 'unicorn', several times, I have been told by those who take every word of the KJV of the Bible as being literal ...

They got ate by the dinosaurs on the Ark.

476 posted on 03/20/2007 8:59:58 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Ah, so those reports of unicorns on the loose in the world today, are just false reports?...Thanks for the information, now I am all the better informed...


477 posted on 03/20/2007 9:03:35 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: dread78645; andysandmikesmom
Well, the KJV of the Bible, mentions a 'unicorn', several times, I have been told by those who take every word of the KJV of the Bible as being literal ...

They got ate by the dinosaurs on the Ark.

That's not quite how the Irish Rovers tell it.

478 posted on 03/20/2007 9:56:16 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
A cat scan you say? by an MRI machine1that was invented by a creation scientist! Dr. Raymond Damadian. In which He was jipped out of the nobel peace prize2 and money and they gave it to his assistants3 who were evolutionists. More dishinesty4 from the evolutisms.

1:CAT Computer (Axial) Tomography works with x-rays, not with magnetic resistance: this shows your ignorance of science
2: "The Nobel Prizes (Swedish: Nobelpriset) are awards in physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and physiology or medicine." This shows your lack of common knowledge
3: Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield weren't assistants of R. V. Damadian. This shows your usual disregard for facts: you make them up as it pleases you
4: that shows your high sense of irony

479 posted on 03/21/2007 12:30:06 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Bravo....that was most excellent...I love the way you did that...


480 posted on 03/21/2007 1:13:51 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Common Spelling Wakeup's version
Paul Geisert Paul Giesert
Wernher von Braun Werner Von Braun
Albert Fleischmann Albert Fleischman
Austin Clark Austin Clark (bravo!)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith Arthur Wilder E Smith
Gerald E. Aardsma Gerald E Ardsma
Louis Agassiz Louis Agassi
Alexander Arndt Alexander Ardnt

si tacuissem: So, out of the eight names you gave in this post, seven were misspelled. You should be embarrassed!

wake-up sleeper: Im not!

481 posted on 03/21/2007 2:20:26 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
Thank you very much!
482 posted on 03/21/2007 2:21:27 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Ok cat scans a bit different no biggie, but that doesnt shown an ignorance of anything realy! Your arguements of the petty, now that shows desperation!


483 posted on 03/21/2007 3:32:49 AM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Ok cat scans a bit different no biggie

:-)

but that doesnt shown an ignorance of anything realy!

If you say so...

Your arguements of the petty, now that shows desperation!

Yep, I get a little bit exasperated reading your posts: The way you show your individuality by unconventional spelling gets annoying.

484 posted on 03/21/2007 4:26:57 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Dr. Thomas G Barnes---Physicist Take him, he’s yours. Wikipedia says, “Thomas G. Barnes is a creationist who posited that the magnetic field of the Earth was decaying at an exponential rate.” This is difficult to take seriously.

It gets worse:

A quick Google search indicates that while Barnes does have a Masters degree in physics, and is a retired professor, his doctorate is an Honorary ScD from his undergrad alma mater, a religious college:

Thomas Barnes, formerly affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, is perhaps best known for the argument that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is proof of its young age.

Barnes, who is an emeritus professor of physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, holds a legitimate M.S. degree in physics from Brown University. However, his Sc.D. degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Christian school and his undergraduate alma mater (when it was known as Hardin-Simmons College), is merely honorary.

as documented by TalkOrigins.

No PhD, ergo no "doctor."

485 posted on 03/21/2007 9:30:57 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his tenth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
>Gasp!<

I certainly hope you're not guilty of dishonest scrutinization!

486 posted on 03/21/2007 11:51:01 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Doesnt make a bit of difference your point is petty I listed dozens and could list hundreds more scientists who are creationists,

I do not doubt that there were thousands of scientists who were creationists - especially in times when being creationist was the default position. However, you claim in your post #338:

And I could give you a list of thousands of scientists and historians and archeaologists who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what?

Had Francis Bacon been "eager in disproving the bible" and later changed his mind?

Same for the "dozens" you listed - You should have a closer look at them, as you advised in your post #457:

The people from the lists Ive posted noe of them fit the claims?, you need to try again and look a little closer!

487 posted on 03/21/2007 12:04:50 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
If all you ever new was the dessert lived in the desseert since you were born

... you'd be surprised by the main course...

488 posted on 03/21/2007 12:08:38 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom; Gumlegs; Wakeup Sleeper
BTW, I enjoy your posts, too. But the post I liked best on this thread was Gumleg's #408 - which let to wake-up sleeper's accusation that his post #393 had been "dishonestly scrutinised " :-)

It's astonishing that someone who mounts up that many factual errors and shows such an ignorance of any thing related to science (wake-up sleeper after being informed about the difference between CAT and MRT: Ok cat scans a bit different no biggie) on the other hand deems himself qualified to judge a Nobel Prize Committee's decision on a technical issue ...

489 posted on 03/21/2007 1:22:25 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem; Wakeup Sleeper
WS: If all you ever new was the dessert lived in the desseert since you were born

st: ... you'd be surprised by the main course...

Whipped cream for everybody! (It's all I ever old).

490 posted on 03/21/2007 1:41:29 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
I am still waiting for your reply to my question in post #465:

And you are still ducking my original question: How many "intelligent designers" were there, and what is your justification for your answer?

If you have so much science at your disposal, you should at least be able to answer that question.


491 posted on 03/21/2007 6:14:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Well you can say what you want but the facts are the facts, and i can tell you one thing what darwin proposed called pangenes, now thats a no evidnce proposal, and someone like steven j gould who repeatedly admitted the same as darwin basicly did, no missing links, etc...etc... over ahundred years later, now thats what I call a no evidence arrogance!


492 posted on 03/21/2007 6:53:54 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
...no missing links, etc...etc...

False (as usual).

This is one example of a "missing link" -- what scientists call a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):



Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33


Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

493 posted on 03/21/2007 7:09:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

no ive shown you the errors in carbon dating etc...etc...

If you want we can go through it again!

radio carbon errors www.angelfire.com/mi/carbondating.html

this website will explain to anyone a great deal of the errors in no evidence science like evolution. science is appologetics you might say cause it supports what the bible says!about creation! it fits the bible timleine!


494 posted on 03/21/2007 7:09:46 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
What is wrong with intelligent design?

There's always someone envious of it to the point of taking offense to it.

D@mn liberals anyway....

495 posted on 03/21/2007 7:12:41 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
no ive shown you the errors in carbon dating etc...etc...

If you want we can go through it again!

radio carbon errors www.angelfire.com/mi/carbondating.html

Your link is bad. Given your ability to spell that's not surprising.

But that's OK. I have reviewed most of those creationist sites dealing with radiocarbon dating and found that they are replete with lies, half truths, and misrepresentations. They are doing apologetics, not science.

I have done a lot of radiocarbon dating, and I can tell the difference between the two. Apparently you can't.

Only a fool would rely on those creationist sites as accurate sources of scientific information.

496 posted on 03/21/2007 7:17:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Where did you get those drawings from the sunday comics, anyone can make something up! and then tell everyone this is how it supposed to be put together, but we know from the past that evolutionists have lied and errored consistantly in this area, those line of supposed bones are nothing but no evidence to the way they are displayed nor confirmed, in other words the picture youve shown is a no evidence made up hypothetical with no evidenceto support its claims.

actually ,fossil discoveries have been shattering the standard beliefs with monotonous regularity. Each in its day was hailed as "scientific proof" that human beings evolved from apelike animals, yet all the canidates once proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list. this is understood by any credible science.


497 posted on 03/21/2007 7:28:45 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
Where did you get those drawings from the sunday comics, anyone can make something up! and then tell everyone this is how it supposed to be put together, but we know from the past that evolutionists have lied and errored consistantly in this area, those line of supposed bones are nothing but no evidence to the way they are displayed nor confirmed, in other words the picture youve shown is a no evidence made up hypothetical with no evidenceto support its claims.

actually ,fossil discoveries have been shattering the standard beliefs with monotonous regularity. Each in its day was hailed as "scientific proof" that human beings evolved from apelike animals, yet all the canidates once proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list. this is understood by any credible science.

Your witnessing would be more effective if you paid attention to spelling, grammar, and got at least some of the science right.

Three strikes... ?

498 posted on 03/21/2007 7:31:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thats zero strikes you haven been able to refute any science I have shown, and i know you cant because, Ive heard all kinds of debates already with people of science and scientists who use to be evolutionists, and the evolutionists are shut down every time. So you need to look into it a little further! Peace!


499 posted on 03/21/2007 8:19:43 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The link is absolutly accurate and you know it, and it shows your dishonesty!


500 posted on 03/21/2007 8:20:45 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 601-649 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.

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