Skip to comments.Louisiana Confounds the Science Thought Police - Neo-Darwinism is no longer a protected orthodoxy...
Posted on 07/08/2008 11:48:40 AM PDT by neverdem
LOL! The old bait and switch. Rather than scientific evidence, you're now demanding something else, which is actually not necessary to support the hypothesis.
Your other comments simply confirm my point. You're raising "scientific" objections to the possibility of finding specific, observable signs of genetic engineering. You claim without proof that it would be impossible to show intelligent activity. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that it would therefore be likewise impossible to show that the phenomenon was a result of random processes.
Observable phenomena were your original criterion for a scientific hypothesis, and the burden would certainly be on the hypothesizer to to produce compelling evidence in intelligent intervention; and you seem to think it's impossible to isolate it. Then again, those other folks who can trace genes back for a long time don't seem to suffer from the difficulties you bring up.... So perhaps your complaint has more to do with personal emotional attachments, than it reflects any real scientific concerns you might have.
But the fact remains -- by your complaints you simply confirm the validity of the ID hypothesis, AND you kindly offer encouragement to those who might claim to be able to scientifically isolate "ID signal" from "naturalistic noise."
“What harmcomes from a belief in an eternal Creator to which you will be held to account?”
The various parties in the vicious and deadly religious wars of centuries past in Europe all believed in a Creator to which one had to account. Because the had various doctrinal differences they felt it was just fine and even necessary to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people who did not have the same nuance of belief. The survivors fled by the millions to the New World, and decided to keep religion out of politics because they knew the evils that could be promoted in the name of the Creator.
For that matter both Sunni and Shia believe in a Creator named Allah to whom they are accountable. The have killed each other by the hundreds of thousands in recent times.
Let all who wish to believe believe, and let those who don’t alone. Only tolerance will preserve our country as envisioned by our founding fathers.
"Just wait until the population explosion. Youll be sorry, you doubter you."
"And science wont let you move the goalposts." [excerpt]I guess that proves that Evolution is not science.
Yes indeed.God would be subjected to the same rules as all other phenomena in scienceAnyone can see that THIS is THE idiotic statement of this entire thread.
"You need to get out more, Im a Catholic, you know, Gods one true Church."Oh yes, that would explain it.
//If one can tell that a gene modified organism was the result of the intentional act of an intelligent agent couldn’t this only be detected against the background of an organism that the majority of the genome was not the intentional act of an intelligent agent but the accumulation of millions of rounds of mutation and selective pressure?//
Wow that is a lot of words strung together. BTW just what is an organism in your dictionary?
If you are opening up science to non-scientific theories then where do you draw the line? Who decides which theory is worthy of classroom analysis and which are not? Why your 'intelligent designer' and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any of the other creation theories out there? When it comes to testing, one intelligent designer is no more testable than another.
Excuse me, but ID is just as scientific as the evolutionary theory. Not to mention that it makes a lot more sense then the “Big bang” theory.
OK, who is the intelligent designer and how do you test for that?
Not to mention that it makes a lot more sense then the Big bang theory.
Of course it does. A cosmic miracle vs. a cosmic boom.
OK, tell me about the Utopias created in the name of Atheism?
Communism killed how many 100’s of millions? And brought what “good” to the world?
Yep, that’s a viable alternative.
“And science wont let you move the goalposts.”
That would preclude physics from science as well. I don’t presume to have the firepower that Steven Hawking has at his disposal, but when the Big Bang became rather irrefutable, he switched from “steady state” (excluding a Creator) to the “yo-yo universe” in order to try to explain creation without God.
Yep, the goalposts keep getting moved in order to try to avoid the implications of the Creator.
Evolutionarily speaking - the creation of life from non-life is being papered over. The odds and the time involved preclude this happening, and any experiments to the contrary have fudged, to put it mildly, the conditions that existed on the early Earth.
Maybe you can explain how the “cosmic boom” originated. And how do you test for that? Explain to me how “DNA” just evolved. Do you understand how complicated DNA is? And if so, how can you logically believe it just happened. One must have faith to believe that-doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
Back at you. How do you test for intelligent design? How do you identify the ultimate designer? Every criticism you attempt to level at evolution science can easily be applied to ID. Science is about answers. Does it have all of them? No, but it keeps trying to find them. Creationism is strictly about faith. There is no interest in questioning the dogma because it is automatically accepted as true. That is fine in a church or house of worship, but it has no place in a science class.
You prove my argument. Evolution science is no different than ID. Neither one can be proved. I’d be more than happy to have ID removed from science class along with evolution. There is no “scientific proof” for either. BUT, if evolution is going to be taught in science class then there is no reason to exclude the ID theory along with it.
But science constantly tests evolution theory through new discoveries and new hypothesis, trying to find answers to the question that are still out there. ID does nothing but try to poke holes in evolution and then say, "See? Evolution is wrong so we must be right by default." Science doesn't work that way.
There is no scientific proof for either. BUT, if evolution is going to be taught in science class then there is no reason to exclude the ID theory along with it.
Before that shouldn't you try and identify the intelligent designer?
What difference does it make who the intelligent designer is? I do know that the answer to this is in every man’s heart. You just refuse to acknowledge this.
Answer this question-if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? I don’t believe scientists have been able to give an answer to this, and indeed, since there still are apes this would seem to disprove the theory of man’s evolution anyway.
A living organism is one that consumes energy in order to maintain its organized structure and capable of reproducing that organized structure.
I'd just love to see you provide a citation from Hawking in which he espouses either a steady-state universe or a yo-yo universe.
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.