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 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-649 next last
To: atlaw

its a laugh huh! show me where its wrong in its train of thought! give me one specific not websites you yourself tell me where at one point tell me where its wrong! Make one specific point from that site bible.ca where its wrong in its science!


551 posted on 03/22/2007 3:39:13 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Not talking about that site, oh my word! the carbon dating site I just showed you! anyways peace dude!


552 posted on 03/22/2007 3:42:34 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Come on coyoteman dont sink to such childish levels, what I have in all its badtyping/spelling has far beyond the credibility of the proposed propaganda no evidence science that all evolutionists proporte. You havent brought up one point just one point at a time. you dont want to seem to debate it that way1 how come. pick one thing you think is a error in the site I gave just one for now and then will go from there and will see that way plain and clear whos holds water!


553 posted on 03/22/2007 3:50:00 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

thats a lame reply and I dont get your points, put downs arent science!


554 posted on 03/22/2007 3:52:43 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Like I said give me one point at a time and will see, dont give a website make one specific point, and then we will debate it and will see if evolution is so overwhelming obviously true, which is ridiculous because it is so overwhelmingly false.


555 posted on 03/22/2007 3:56:32 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
#548: No Im meant euthanist! as in euhanasia!

#49: still didnt spell it rite oh dear me! euthanasia!

Ah, that was a tricky one:

word google-hits
euthanist 571

Compare this with a real word:

word google-hits
euthanisia 5.390.000

The good thing about creating your own words: no-one will mind your spelling!

BTW, your remember the list, promised in #338?

556 posted on 03/22/2007 4:03:52 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Crackpots are evolutionists/atheists like

Stalin

Hitler

murderers in general/Charles manson

Lennin

Mary madalin O hare what ever how you spelled it.

and the other guy who said never trust anyone over thirty,and he killed himself.

These are the crackpots and oh yeah there evolutionists/atheists!


557 posted on 03/22/2007 4:13:24 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

to come off saying HA! coyoteman shows arrogance and a lack of credibility and maturity! If you can prove a specific point invalis then by all means lets hear it, but to just try and say everytime oh thats not fact and then not back it up, is real quite unscientific.


558 posted on 03/22/2007 4:19:43 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Probabaly! But his mom probably had it ruff, since she married a nutcase Charles father who was the son of ersamus Darwin who killed his wife by giving her a to strong a dose of opium when she was intoxicated, no to mention Charles dad who was a ruthless business man who kept cheap labor practices etc... reda about Darwins crackpot upbringing.


559 posted on 03/22/2007 4:25:03 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

talk about spelling, "your remember the list" post such and such do you realy want me to just go on and on with names that you have so poorly been able to deny so far,


regardless its been more than 50 which you said It would stop at 50, but Ill give you some more if you need to keep seeing.

Go to- Answers in genesis - and look up "Are there any scientists whoare alive TODAY believe in the biblical account of genesis?".


560 posted on 03/22/2007 4:43:43 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper; Coyoteman
coyoteman shows arrogance and a lack of credibility and maturity!

I'm not fond of the whole Freudian stuff, but speaking of projection: we have a winner!
561 posted on 03/22/2007 4:44:01 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
talk about spelling, "your remember the list" post such and such do you realy want me to just go on and on with names that you have so poorly been able to deny so far,

A checked the names you gave and could find only one "who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what". This one was the first you named (correctly!), i.e., Dr. C.L. Cagan.

The rest of the names: window-dressing

562 posted on 03/22/2007 4:55:34 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem; Wakeup Sleeper
The rest of the names: window-dressing

Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.

563 posted on 03/22/2007 7:22:42 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem; Wakeup Sleeper
euthanist 571
euthanisia 5.390.000

Youth in asia 39,700,000

Ha! (said ALF-style)

564 posted on 03/22/2007 10:45:34 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
You havent brought up one point just one point at a time. you dont want to seem to debate it that way1 how come. pick one thing you think is a error in the site I gave just one for now and then will go from there and will see that way plain and clear whos holds water!

See the links I provided in post #516, above.

I see you are still afraid to address the questions I have asked you in numerous posts now.

For the lurkers, those links in post #516 will provide a significant amount of information on radiocarbon dating. However, apparently Wakeup doesn't believe in that data for religious reasons, and will accept the most flimsy and unscientific arguments against the radiocarbon method if they seem to support his beliefs.

565 posted on 03/22/2007 11:07:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
youth in asia: 42,900,000
"youth in asia": 63,100
Ha-Ha (said Bart-style :-)
566 posted on 03/23/2007 5:43:20 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
give me one specific not websites you yourself tell me where at one point tell me where its wrong!

oh not, the you with yourself tell me the one point not websites where tell me or you in place points to the specific could be right!

567 posted on 03/23/2007 7:27:42 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
I'm a little bit lost: Not talking about that site, oh my word! the carbon dating site I just showed you! anyways peace dude!

Do you mean this site:The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods?

You didn't show this site, you gave a vague hint by giving a corrupted link...

568 posted on 03/23/2007 9:05:09 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

~chuckling~


569 posted on 03/23/2007 9:33:13 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper; Coyoteman
The article The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods has to be scientific - it uses footnotes and stuff!

Granted, it's just three footnotes, but they show the wisdom of this remarkable essay. So, here they are, in their whole splendor and somewhat odd - but original - enumeration1:

Carbon dating references:
1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind2
6) Antarctic Journal, Washington
10) "Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker


1: I can think of two reasons for this:
  1. Space is left for more annotations to come - or
  2. Even more embarrassing sources were eliminated
Call me a skeptic, but I tend to No. 2...
2: Link added by me :-)
570 posted on 03/23/2007 2:29:12 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem
1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind

Gee; is that by any chance the same Kent Hovind who bought his degree from an unaccreditted diploma mill called "Patriot University" and who is currently cooling his heels in jail for Tax evasions convictions?

Just for reference, here's photo of the original campus of "Patriot U" -- Hovind's alma mater:

Yup; anybody who gets a doctorate from a school like that must be a leading expert on the science of Radiometric Dating techniques.....

< /sarcasm>

571 posted on 03/23/2007 5:33:54 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his tenth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Just jumping into the thread here w/out having read much.

James Michener wrote at length about bogus diplomas, and Universities in his book "Space" more than 20 years ago.
572 posted on 03/23/2007 5:45:51 PM PDT by Radix (Time served in the Congress should be reason enough to disallow a person from the Presidency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem
Hey! That's Dr. Gary Parker, Ed.D., "Creation Biologist." He's been at AIG and ICR for years. Here's a link to his AIG bio.
573 posted on 03/23/2007 6:09:50 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; Wakeup Sleeper
Wow, he fully qualifies for wake-up sleeper's list of 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? and sleeper mentioned him in his post #367. So, now there are two names on the list:
  1. Dr. C.L. Cagan
  2. Dr. Gary Parker
I suppose that even sleeper won't stretch the definition of "scientist" in a way to include "Dr." Kent Hovind.

@ sleeper: only 998 to go, keep them coming!

574 posted on 03/24/2007 6:08:51 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I have adressed all points you have brought up, you are just unwilling to accept it, bring up one point at a time, make a specific comment regarding science pointing to evolution, and you will be easily shown that it is not scientific fact. just one point at a time. you are unwilling to do this because it makes it very clear when it is done this way. And thats just what evolurtionist propagandists are about making things anything BUT clear and specififc.


575 posted on 03/24/2007 10:57:00 AM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

your replys are unfounded and petty ay best! lets debate the specific science! not refer to the petty and unscientific.


576 posted on 03/24/2007 10:58:42 AM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
What happens if you pour a gallon of water into a 1 litre measuring cup? You may get a result, something between zero and one - depends on how forceful you were. Of course the reading is worthless.... And your mom will come to complain about the mess you made - again - though everyone has told you that it doesn't work... and you will say: you have a reading, so hasn't been a gallon in the first place...

That's what the main point of The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods is about:

They know, that carbon dating won't give meaningful results for samples which are older than ~50,000 years. They do it non the less. And they do it again. And they claim that they have proved either that the world is less than 50,000 years old or that carbon dating doesn't work.

To get back to our little analogy: this is like claiming that their is either less than one litre of liquid or that it is impossible to measure the amount of one gallon...

577 posted on 03/24/2007 11:12:15 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem; Wakeup Sleeper
Wow, he fully qualifies for wake-up sleeper's list of 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? and sleeper mentioned him in his post #367. So, now there are two names on the list:
  1. Dr. C.L. Cagan
  2. Dr. Gary Parker
I suppose that even sleeper won't stretch the definition of "scientist" in a way to include "Dr." Kent Hovind.

@ sleeper: only 998 to go, keep them coming!

Careful. Don't get trampled in the stampede.

578 posted on 03/24/2007 11:22:00 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
your replys are unfounded and petty ay best!

Petty? Maybe... But unfounded? I gave you the sources, your very words of wisdom, showing your "arrogance, lack of credibility and maturity", things you seek in others...

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? - Luke 6,41

579 posted on 03/24/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

False again!!!! there are many upon many scientists who use to be evironmentalists, evolutionists, and archeaologists and all the many more who are very credible and highly learned in their subjects and have contributed greatly to science, unlike evolutionists who hold to creation by God the only God the Father of Jesus Christ.

let me give you another SCIENTIFIC source, Radiometric dating deception, www.cs.unc.edu

Recovery of Neandertal mt.DNA answers in genesis

just a little tid bit! Another ridiculous mathmatical joke for evolutionists! An average sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids, can be arranged in 10300 different ways (this is an astronomicaly huge number, consisiting of 1 followed by 300 zeros) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule, the rest of them are amino acid chains that are either totaly useless, or else are potentialy harmful to living things.

In other words the probability of formation of only ONE protein molecule is 1 in 10^300. Now thats funny!!!! That alone should bring laughter at the thought of this thing called evolutionism. 1 in 10^300 for one protein! and you still wouldnt have life!!! it doent even give enough for the proper function of the protein, theres more to it. and to add a protein with only 288 amino acids is a modest one compared to some that need a 1000 amino acids!

Lets continue shall we!

If you want to learn more go to the

unjustmedia.com I know you will come back with a no science answer like "you spelled the word "the" wrong " or "thats a laugh, its riddled with errors" but I will say it again you point out a specific error if you think there is one, and then we will debate it specificaly, you have to back up what you say, not just propagandise with more no evidnece and put downs! Peace!


580 posted on 03/24/2007 11:52:25 AM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Window dressing peole who are highly regarded in science and have contributed greatly to scinec they are window dressing? come on gummybearlegs! you crack me up homes! and I cant help but picture you with gummybearlegs! Peace!


581 posted on 03/24/2007 11:57:59 AM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Thats funny ill agree, but it still isnt a scientific response!


582 posted on 03/24/2007 12:00:34 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Thats funny ill agree, but it still isnt a scientific response!


583 posted on 03/24/2007 12:00:35 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Thats funny, but you do know its unfactual! Of course you dont know, you believe in the religion of escapeism of conviction evolutionism.


584 posted on 03/24/2007 12:06:06 PM PDT by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper

I have not been part of this thread, but it is obvious to me that there was a creator. He (get that, He) obviously used some sort of evolution as a tool.

That is just my opinion.

Just think, out of all of everything, this may be the only place anywhere in the entire universe that has blue sky, birds, dogs, cats, beautiful women, spring breezes, fine wine, etc. How could you not believe that there was an overwhelming intelligence to give us all this.

PS, where there is intelligence, there is design.


585 posted on 03/24/2007 12:27:22 PM PDT by 2ndClassCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
As usual, you are giving hints - and we have the work to do:

let me give you another SCIENTIFIC source, Radiometric dating deception, www.cs.unc.edu

This leads you to "Department of Computer Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" - and that is a relevant scientific source. So we don't see anything about "Radiometric Dating Deception" on it. But if you dig deeper, you'll find David Plaisted, Ph.D., a professor of the department. Has he published an article about the "Radiometric Dating Deception"? Not according to his list of his publications... But, alas, on the private part of his site, unlinked, is the article sleeper quoted: "Radiometric Dating Deception". A small sample:

The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods. Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion. Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation.

He even dishes out "Quotations about Small Evolution", including this:

Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
Where to start, oh, where to start....
586 posted on 03/24/2007 2:36:55 PM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

Evolution has almost 0 predictability and the same amount of explanatory power. Do you know, given a specific population in a specific environment what will happen to the population? Does evolution predict how the population's DNA will change? No. Evolution only predicts that at some point, the DNA will change and whatever changes will be selected from based on an undetermined fitness ratio.

Nice summation. Here are some past gems I was able to glean from these boards several years ago. See if any of them look familiar. :)


"Evolution is an observed fact."

Depends on how one defines "evolution." I give you another "best-hits" compilation of evolution's "morphing definitions." See if you can follow the "changing" chameleon!

Here we see one definition of evolution.

"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to tile view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."2

2. Julian Huxley: "Evolution and Genetics" in What is Man? (Ed. by J. R. Newman, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1955), p.278.

And here we see another:

"Evolution does NOT proceed towards greater complexity. If anything, it meanders towards fitness within the species' environment. (And of course there's a big question of just how well it does that!)"

130 Posted on 10/30/1999 15:14:23 PDT by jennyp

"Maybe Darwin thought it was neat & linear. But it turns out it's actually quite a chaotic (unpredictable in advance) process. Wild & bushy, more like. Kinda like the dynamic free-market economy vs. the intelligently designed Soviet economy."

98 Posted on 10/03/1999 22:23:54 PDT by jennyp

"evolution is usually defined as any shift of allele frequencies in a population. Scientists don't usually make value judgments on whether or not a particular shift in frequency is "upward" or "downward". In fact in a book by Gould that I read, he gives an example of a plankton species that got smaller over time. While it's a common misstatement among even many of those who accept evolution as fact that evolution is "progress" it's not really a part of evolutionary theory."

49 Posted on 10/21/1999 07:40:16 PDT by garbanzo (garbanzo@worldnet.att.net)

Although 90 percent of Americans believe in God, "no divine intervention" is what their kids have been learning in public schools. As late as 1995, before yielding to anti-Darwinian pressure, the National Association of Biology Teachers made this clear when it described evolution as "impersonal, unsupervised, unpredictable."

Published: 08.22.99 Author: JACK CASHILL

If, as you imply, evolution is ongoing, where, exactly is it headed?

"We'll never know until we get there. Evolution doesn't have a predetermined goal, in the sense that we could predict beforehand. I guess you could say that it's headed in the direction of optimal fitness of each species to its local ecology. Of course, ecologies change all the time."

71 Posted on 10/03/1999 00:12:01 PDT by jennyp

The sheer dishonesty with which evolutionists approach the whole subject is quite clear.

When they want to prove evolution, they simply call it "change." When they want to attack creationists for distorting evolution, they trot out "improvement." And yet, "improvement" must have been part of the "change," or we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

And note the following:

"Evolution does NOT proceed towards greater complexity. If anything, it meanders towards fitness within the species' environment. (And of course there's a big question of just how well it does that!)"

130 Posted on 10/30/1999 15:14:23 PDT by jennyp

Now I ask you all to consider the quote, above, in the light of this oft-repeated evidence on these threads:

"...RNA strands of as little as six units is enough to provide a template for the creation of new copies of itself. Six units!"

166 Posted on 01/15/2000 21:42:28 PST by jennyp

I wonder how one gets from "RNA strands of as little as six units" to HUMANS, CELLS, DNA, a protein with a process that "does NOT proceed towards greater complexity."

"Six units!"

All life from RNA strands as little as "Six units!" by a process that "does NOT proceed towards greater complexity."

Is any of this getting through?


And a few more quotes that illustrate the illogic by which evols push their world view.

garbanzo: we can tell that horses have changed over time - that part seems quite clear - but what isn't known is exactly who ancestors of horses were. The fact that we don't know exactly what the ancestry was doesn't change the fact that horses developed from somewhat horselike progenitors.

watchin:
1) We know horses have changed.
2) We don't know what they looked like before
3) It is a fact that horses developed from somewhat horselike progenitors.

Okay. How can #1 and #2 be true at the same time? That's like meeting someone for the first time and telling him he looks like he's lost weight. And the basis for #3 is that you know horses evolved because evolution is true?
160 Posted on 11/03/1999 13:14:15 PST by watchin

"It's clear humans evolved from something, just what is isn't yet clear." "The law of biogenesis probably breaks down at the molecular level. Exactly how it breaks down isn't yet known though."

94 Posted on 08/22/1999 20:59:27 PDT by garbanzo


Ah, good times, good times. O.o

587 posted on 03/24/2007 8:05:34 PM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: 2ndClassCitizen

He (get that, He) obviously used some sort of evolution as a tool...PS, where there is intelligence, there is design

Actually, design is evidence of intelligence. The inverse does not necessarily hold true.

Evolution is only obvious based on how broadly one chooses to define it, and how much someone is willing to view the evidence without wearing their materialist blinders.

588 posted on 03/24/2007 8:18:22 PM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: 2ndClassCitizen
Evolution is, has, and does possess all the scientific merit and scholarship of that other "religion" curently masquerading as "science": human-caused global warming. Look at the parallels...

The adherents of both use ad hominems and various other hystrionics to shout down their opposition.

When the adherents of both are not using outright frauds to prop up their respective world views, they resort to questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies and contradictions and specious arguments to confuse the issues and change the subject.

Darwin was a racist. Gould was a Marxist. Al Gore is a Socialist. The "science" was and is used to perpetuate their respective world views of man and his relationships to other men and the world around them. Neither Darwin nor Gore were qualified to write scientifically on their respective subjects. And while Gould was a scientist, even he questioned the mechanics of natural selection and the fossil record as "proofs" of Darwinian evolution. (In other words, there is hardly a consensus - even among evolutionists - just how all this evolution occured, only that - like all "true believers" - they assert it's true).

Both evolution and man-caused global warming exist to ensure one thing: that research grants keep flowing into university coffers. Both are big business.

The only difference between the two is that evolution as a world view has been around a lot longer. That, however, does not make it any more true than the incessant screaming lefties make about their beloved dogma, human-caused global warming.

589 posted on 03/24/2007 8:48:20 PM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Wakeup Sleeper
I have adressed all points you have brought up, you are just unwilling to accept it,

You haven't addressed squat. You have made outlandish statements, refused to back them up even when challenged, and given a couple of links (often incorrect) to creationist "science" on apologetic websites.

Your record on these threads is so pathetic that I am wondering if you are an evolutionist deliberately trying to make creationists look bad, or if you are actually a group of college students sitting around drinking and trying to see how ridiculous a poster can get before somebody gets wise.


...bring up one point at a time, make a specific comment regarding science pointing to evolution, and you will be easily shown that it is not scientific fact. just one point at a time.

One point? OK, here is a point.

Homo ergaster is a transitional between earlier, more ape-like forms and later, more human-like forms.


...you are unwilling to do this because it makes it very clear when it is done this way. And thats just what evolurtionist propagandists are about making things anything BUT clear and specififc.

BS.


OK, I have made a clear point about evolution. Lets see the quality of your scholarship in rebutting that point. But be warned, creationist websites do not do science; they distort science to make the result come out the way they they "believe" it should. Posting a link to some half baked creationist website does not rebut my point. For that you need some real facts, not apologetics.

590 posted on 03/24/2007 10:57:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

But be warned, creationist websites do not do science; they distort science to make the result come out the way they they "believe" it should.

Put another way:

But be warned, evolutionist websites do not do science; they distort science to make the result come out the way they they "believe" it should.

There. That's better.

591 posted on 03/25/2007 2:04:02 AM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Stingray; Coyoteman

I once read a Creationist website, which tried to, quite miserably, discredit a scientific point, made by a scientist who supported evolution...they did this by saying that since this scientist was a Catholic, and since we all know that Catholics believe in transubstantiation, therefore this scientist cannot really be a true Christian, therefore his scientific findings are suspect...

Good grief, how can anyone believe drivel like that?....but this was a creationist website, that tried to argue the merits of scientific conclusions, based on nothing more than ones religious beliefs...if one was a Catholic(wink, wind, nod, nod), then they cannot be a Christian, and therefore they cannot be truthful about science...they actually expected that rational people would actually buy into such nonsense...and obviously some do..

More to the point Stingray...Coyoteman had it right the first time...your version is completely incorrect...

You tried, but like these creationist websites, which do no science, but try to argue against science using nothing but their personal interpretations from the Bible(and these are nothing but personal interpretations, as no one here actually does speak for God), your attempt to change Coyotemans statement, was really quite poor...


592 posted on 03/25/2007 2:28:06 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Illustrations of so-called evolutionary "science" cited in my reply a few posts up.


593 posted on 03/25/2007 2:49:34 AM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

I have read your posts...they are nothing but nonsense...I have also read your anti-evolution views on another thread late tonite...I have the same response...they are nothing but nonsense...

The hour is late, time to turn in...

I am sure, you and I will be in the same place tomorrow...

But so far, I am quite unimpressed by anything you have said...


594 posted on 03/25/2007 2:53:23 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

"your attempt to change Coyotemans statement, was really quite poor..."

Actually, had I simply tried to change the original post, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of quoting it. The point was to illustrate how his statement - when viewed from another perspective - cuts both ways.

Unfortunately, your knee-jerk reaction (as typified by many evols I've dealt with over the years) indicates an utter lack to understand subtlety and nuance.


595 posted on 03/25/2007 2:53:56 AM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

"...they are nothing but nonsense...I have also read your anti-evolution views on another thread late tonite...I have the same response...they are nothing but nonsense..."

Another typical comeback: dismiss without so much as a sound reason for doing so.

The same could be said of everything I've read from you so far. O.o


596 posted on 03/25/2007 2:57:38 AM PDT by Stingray ("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Oh, do give it a rest...my statement stands...not a knee jerk reaction all...just the plain truth...if you dont like it, tough...

Who actually cares how many times you have dealt with this with other people who support evolution, and who cares for how long you have dealt with it...you were obviously wrong then, and you are wrong now...

And I understand subtlety and nuance a good deal more than you realize...the fact that you dont grasp that, shows your lack of undertanding...

As I said, tomorrow is another day, and sure enough, we will all be here...this can continue another time, as it surely will...



597 posted on 03/25/2007 3:01:38 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Typical comeback?...too bad, isnt it..

Apparently all your efforts to change peoples minds about evolution, have not been successful...if all you can do, is say, 'typical comeback', you have already lost...

Keep talking about how you did this and that in the past, and how everything is typical, and you lose again...

Amusing...


598 posted on 03/25/2007 3:07:07 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

'amusing' placemarker


599 posted on 03/25/2007 3:08:24 AM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Stingray; jennyp; garbanzo
So, you are quoting the posts of to anti-creationist freepers, i.e., jennyp and garbonzo (without pinging them, BTW), claim that they contradict each other and therefore, they illustrate the illogic by which evols push their world view.

Surprise, individuals - even adherents to the same position - hold different views; sometimes slightly like these two, sometimes more grave (have a look at the Religious Forum) ...

But, amusingly, there isn't so much of a contradiction in the quotes you gave...

prime?

600 posted on 03/25/2007 4:13:42 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-649 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