Skip to comments.
Pseudo-science Attacks Irreducible Complexity (that is, the Temple of Darwin attacks REAL SCIENCE)
ICR ^
| September 10, 2009
| Brian Thomas, M.S.
Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 601-614 next last
To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
To: GodGunsGuts
To: GodGunsGuts
Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains
no peer reviewed site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever.
It is posted by a member of the new Christian Taliban
attempting to pass off his agenda as "conservatave".
They are not posted to provide proof of Creationism, but instead
merely to drag america back to the middle ages.
Buyer Beware!
4
posted on
09/10/2009 8:50:11 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: GodGunsGuts
Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.
Is ICR defending astrology as well?
To: <1/1,000,000th%
Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology. Is "under oath" supposed to mean something here? Perhaps that he isn't lying about what his opinion really is?
If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt, it could be explained as a random natural phenomenon through the application of statistical possibilities, however slight.
(Monkey + Typewriter) X Time = Shakespeare
However, common sense says it can't happen.
6
posted on
09/10/2009 9:02:22 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
To: <1/1,000,000th%; GodGunsGuts
"Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology. Is ICR defending astrology as well?" This has been explained to evolutionists ad nauseum, with no effect. They repeat the same misrepresentation even after having the truth explained to them.
If you would actually read Dr. Behe's testimony instead of letting hack evolutionist websites do your thinking for you; you would see that Dr. Behe testified that ID was falsifiable in the same manner that astrology had been falsified.
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
7
posted on
09/10/2009 9:02:40 AM PDT
by
GourmetDan
(Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
To: xcamel
I see the Temple of Darwin allowed you to keep just enough grey matter to repeat the same mantra over and over and over and over and over...
To: GodGunsGuts
And you're trying to tell us that it is not what you do spamming FR with the same drivel every day?
9
posted on
09/10/2009 9:07:13 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: SampleMan
You should never accept a statement by an evolutionist at face value. Their minds don’t work correctly and their statements are likewise false.
Behe actually testified that ID was falsifiable just as astrology had been falsified.
In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.
10
posted on
09/10/2009 9:07:35 AM PDT
by
GourmetDan
(Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
To: xcamel
I see. You can't refute the contents of the article, so you just post meaningless ridicule.
Your side lost. Deal with it.
11
posted on
09/10/2009 9:10:44 AM PDT
by
Liberty1970
(Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
To: GourmetDan
==But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
I wonder if the evos realize that their entire worldview can be summed up by the very last word of your reply.
To: GourmetDan
My point is simply that those who dismiss ID out of hand as irrational, have no problem accepting the dizzying improbabilities otherwise required.
1 in a billion chance? Acceptable.
1 in a trillion chance? Acceptable.
One trillionth in a trillion chance? No problem.
Such unquestionable acceptance smacks of blind faith to me, which is what they suggest they just can't accept.
13
posted on
09/10/2009 9:16:22 AM PDT
by
SampleMan
(Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
To: Liberty1970
Your statement would be funny, if it wasn't so incredibly sad.
14
posted on
09/10/2009 9:16:56 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: GourmetDan
One funny thing about this whole debate is how ridiculous the evolutionist/naturalist mindset is in the context of real-world engineering and technology. Even fairly simple man-made artifacts are typically designed and engineered in non-stepwise manner (I'm thinking of the airbag crash modules built where I work, for example). Nor is it conceivable that such simple artifacts (compared to biological systems) could be built in a step-wise fashion as Darwinism requires. Yet it is an article of faith among Darwinists that literally everything in the biological world was produced in step-wise fashion, in total contradiction to our practical technological experience.
Darwinists sometimes naively point to 'evolutionary' iterations in technology without grasping the numerous intelligent decisions and multiple concrete changes in design and manufacturing for even small product upgrades. The reality is, changing most decently-optimized products requires numerous simultaneous changes to maintain function and efficiency such that it is an improvement over the old product design.
A biological example would be the shift from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. What makes a reptilian lung work in its environment is quite different from the optimal design for an avian lung, and requires substantial redesign. Not gradual 'evolution.' The same could be said for innumerable other biological features (such as different eye designs, bones, urea excretory systems, etc.) found in such a proposed transition. Evolutionism has embarassingly become a 19th-century word story unable to cope with the specifics and complexities of modern scientific discovery.
15
posted on
09/10/2009 9:20:33 AM PDT
by
Liberty1970
(Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
To: xcamel
I take it back, the Temple of Darwin has left just enough grey matter in your head to program you to post a few kindergarten caricatures and the same mantra over and over and over and over and over...
To: xcamel
“This is a Meta-article that contains no peer reviewed site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever.”
It appears that the assumption of your statement is that FreeRepublic “scientists” are not intelligent enough to read an article of this nature and conclude that it is a “Meta-article”. Were you attempting to dissuade others from actually reading the inflammatory material and deciding for themselves? The article itself is not that brilliant, yet you threw up a warning like you were addressing a sixth grade school lab experiment. How incredibility paranoid.
17
posted on
09/10/2009 9:23:53 AM PDT
by
Leonard210
(Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
To: SampleMan
If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt, So we found part of one of the crashed missions. Next!!!
18
posted on
09/10/2009 9:24:11 AM PDT
by
org.whodat
(Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
To: GodGunsGuts
same mantra over and over and over and over and over... You saying this, is priceless. Please continue.
19
posted on
09/10/2009 9:24:20 AM PDT
by
going hot
(Happiness is a Momma Deuce)
To: xcamel
20
posted on
09/10/2009 9:24:42 AM PDT
by
org.whodat
(Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 601-614 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