Posted on 07/08/2008 11:48:40 AM PDT by neverdem
“ID is about proving that the Christian deity created everything, just as stated in Genesis, so that religion can be wedged back into the classrooms.”
When I was young Christianity was “wedged” out of the classroom. The upside for some is that it was easier to knock-up your girl friend or procure some fine weed.
"Wow, a real live snake handler."You think all Evangelical Christians are snake handlers?
No, ID isn't even interested in who the designer is. Science, on the other hand, may not have identified what the source material was but that doesn't mean it throws it's hands up and stops looking.
BTW, The Big Bang was outside the natural laws of physics and was thus supernatural. (i.e., cosmic miracle)
There are a whole lot of physicists who would disagree with you on that.
“There are a whole lot of physicists who would disagree with you on that.”
But none that can prove it.
huh?
Excellent points
With all due respect, Limbaugh isn’t the mental midget in this conversation. Try to keep up would you? Your comparisons make no sense.
"There are a whole lot of physicists who would disagree with you on that." [excerpt]I really don't care how many physicists disagree with me, the evidence clearly disproves the Big Bang.
You come up with a single case and from that you determine that 'much of (human evolution)has been debunked?' Spoken like a true ID adherent. Nebraska man is the exception which proves the beauty of science. It was science which made the original classification, and science which later showed it to be a mistake. Nothing was hidden. No fraud was perpetrated. Open review of the hypothesis. Science is like that. Theories are developed, tested, opened for review, re-tested by others, and sometimes found to be untrue. ID, on the other hand, is a closed mind. Nobody questions ID, nobody examines it. It has no theories of its own, merely attempts to poke holes in evolution and then declare itself the winner by default.
“ID, on the other hand, is a closed mind.”
ID proponents are not the ones who would exclude all debate from the public school systems to the exclusion of their own.
None of the examples you gave have been proven by the scientific method yet you recite them as fact. Please give me one example that has been positively proven, using the scientific method, with regard to evolution. And quite frankly, any scientist who advocates evolution, knowing the intricacies of DNA, is not intellectually honest. There is still so much doctors don’t know about the human body, yet you maintain that there was no intelligent designer? You just keep telling yourself that, but personally I feel sorry for you.
I wonder how long it will be until some kid challenges the “dogma” of mathematics, and argues that it’s unfair to say there is only one right answer.
The theory as taught at one time suggested that the new species would replace the old.
Limbaugh removed all doubt that he is a science mental midget that when he used the same line you did. And by that, you are quite right. Only the person reciting that same line Rush used is the science mental midget in this conversation.
Maybe in your fantasy Bible classes, but not in real life. As others have said, even Answers in Genesis knows that line is a BS argument.
Because science is incapable of proving something. It only tests theories for falsification. So far, evolution has not been falsified every time it has been tested. Most of the science stuff from the DI is so bad, one comes away less informed after reading it.
You can’t make an intellectual argument so you resort to name calling. Typical.
Sometimes people ask why God didn't create a perfect world. One in which there are no diseases, no pain, no suffering, no disabilities, no disasters, etc.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly the kind of world God did create for us. One simple disobedience changed all that. God gave us "free will". That is why we, and the world we live in, are not perfect.
“The extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms. We can understand why when a species has once disappeared it never reappears. Groups of species increase in numbers slowly, and endure for unequal periods of time; for the process of modification is necessarily slow, and depends on many complex contingencies.”
“The dominant species of the larger dominant groups tend to leave many modified descendants, and thus new sub-groups and groups are formed. As these are formed, the species of the less vigorous groups, from their inferiority inherited from a common progenitor, tend to become extinct together, and to leave no modified offspring on the face of the earth. But the utter extinction of a whole group of species may often be a very slow process, from the survival of a few descendants, lingering in protected and isolated situations. When a group has once wholly disappeared, it does not reappear; for the link of generation has been broken.”
“We can understand how the spreading of the dominant forms of life, which are those that oftenest vary, will in the long run tend to people the world with allied, but modified, descendants; and these will generally succeed in taking the places of those groups of species which are their inferiors in the struggle for existence. Hence, after long intervals of time, the productions of the world will appear to have changed simultaneously.”
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.