| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2004 10:29:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
.
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 03:03:50 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404271932.236e0ae2@posting.google.com>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
If he's really just unaware, then he hasn't looked, has he? But he's
apparently quite willing to publicly advertise his lack of knowledge.
So: add "appallingly ignorant and proud of it" to the list of
possibilities.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Even granting your closing phrases, that would mean he is apparently
unable to separate the issues of the age of the earth (which relies
mostly on physics and geology) from the origin and evolution of life
(chemistry and biology). There's nothing to stop him from reading up
on cosmology or basic geology, and he would probably find that
literature relatively free of potentially offensive statements about
life developing "through totally mindless processes".
I'd say anyone incapable of making that distinction, and considering
the evidence for each area independently, is an idiot. I mean, even
you're smarter than that, aren't you, David?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
In short, as I point out above: "unaware" itself has some unflattering
implications, and "hesitant..." is subsumed under "idiot".
-- Kizhé
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
27 Apr 2004 10:55:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 07:51:28 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 01:39:44 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com...
<snip>
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What evidence do you have?
<snip>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
No.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 08:37:11 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message
news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article
could be for real. While bitter experience has taught not to
place upper bounds on human ignorance and stupidity, the
idealist in me still wants to scream "No one can possibly be
that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that most of the
TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their
respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really
are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane.
You pick, David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the
strong evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can
only go with what it has. When you provide said evidence for
god/alien/whatever then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:20:35 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 02:13:40 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com...
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
Let's see them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 06:00:17 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections to a
peer-reviewed journal?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 12:23:59 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94DA47F1217CEfstone69@207.69.154.203>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections to a
peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
Was Darwin's 1859 _Origin of Species_ peer-reviewed?
If it was to go through a process of peer-review today, would it
survive the process and be published substantially unchanged?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 01:10:36 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404290927.3ac56846@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94DA47F1217CEfstone69@207.69.154.203>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any--
would you accept as being evidence for an intelligent
designer(s) of: physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of
natural selection and to the allegation that life can arise from
non-life totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections
to a peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
Why should we consider them to be anything more than a steaming pile of
cow manure?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 10:08:00 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94DA90E555DACfstone69@207.69.154.205>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404290927.3ac56846@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94DA47F1217CEfstone69@207.69.154.203>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any--
would you accept as being evidence for an intelligent
designer(s) of: physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of
natural selection and to the allegation that life can arise from
non-life totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections
to a peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
Why should we consider them to be anything more than a steaming pile of
cow manure?
Consider them what you will.
I see you snipped my questions. Here they are again, plus another
question:
Was Darwin's 1859 _Origin of Species_ peer-reviewed?
If it was to go through a process of peer-review today, would it
survive the process and be published substantially unchanged?
For what reasons should we in 2004 consider the 1859 _Origin of
Species_ to be anything more than a steaming pile of cow manure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
30 Apr 2004 06:32:05 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404291911.77035f97@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94DA90E555DACfstone69@207.69.154.205>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404290927.3ac56846@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94DA47F1217CEfstone69@207.69.154.203>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any--
would you accept as being evidence for an intelligent
designer(s) of: physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated,
long-since-refuted objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of
natural selection and to the allegation that life can arise from
non-life totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated"
objections to a peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
Why should we consider them to be anything more than a steaming pile
of cow manure?
Consider them what you will.
I see you snipped my questions. Here they are again, plus another
question:
Was Darwin's 1859 _Origin of Species_ peer-reviewed?
Yes, extensively. And it was continuously revised, by Darwin himself,
during his lifetime.
If it was to go through a process of peer-review today, would it
survive the process and be published substantially unchanged?
Darwin wouldn't have written it in it's historical form after 150 years
of research. He would have quite happily incorporated the current
scientific understanding of genetics and geology that *didn't exist 150
years ago*.
For what reasons should we in 2004 consider the 1859 _Origin of
Species_ to be anything more than a steaming pile of cow manure?
Because the basic theory has stood up to 150 years of peer review.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 11:34:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:08:00 +0000 (UTC), (david ford)
wrote:
[...]
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections
to a peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
Why should we consider them to be anything more than a steaming pile of
cow manure?
Consider them what you will.
I see you snipped my questions. Here they are again, plus another
question:
Was Darwin's 1859 _Origin of Species_ peer-reviewed?
In the way that it is done in modern scientific journals? No, as that
procedure didn't exist then. In the sense that it and the evidence it
relied on was reviewed by almost every expert in the various fields it
touched upon and debated in the scientific literature of the time (and up
until the present), it was one of the most peer-reviewed scientific works
of all times.
If it was to go through a process of peer-review today, would it
survive the process and be published substantially unchanged?
Nope. There is a 150 years of additional evidence to include and, of
course, corrections to be made. The core parts of the theory
(transmutation, common descent, the struggle for existence, natural and
sexual selection) have held up remarkably well, however.
For what reasons should we in 2004 consider the 1859 _Origin of
Species_ to be anything more than a steaming pile of cow manure?
Because, historically, it set off a research program that has been
fantastically successful in increasing human knowledge of biology and,
scientifically, much of it is still relevant, things even you admit its
"competitors", such as ID, fail to achieve.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
"Intelligent Design" is the proposition
that God can be caught in a mousetrap.
- from Frank J. -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 02:41:53 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94DA47F1217CEfstone69@207.69.154.203>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections to a
peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
Then why should they be taken seriously?
Was Darwin's 1859 _Origin of Species_ peer-reviewed?
_The Origin of the Species_ was extensively reviewed, critiqued,
attacked, deconstructed, studied, and so on, for years. Some of the
data is wrong, but the theory that Darwin developed has been sound
enough to weather all of these citicisms.
If it was to go through a process of peer-review today, would it
survive the process and be published substantially unchanged?
Not today, no. But, then, Darwin would write it today. He would put
together a comprehensive work with the data that is available *today*
(as opposed to the data that he used 150 years ago -- which was, while
out of date today, the best data available at the time). He would
defend it, and publish *that* through a process of peer review.
So. Where is your theory again? Or do you still feel it's unnecessary
to provide a scientific theory?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 01:31:00 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94DA47F1217CEfstone69@207.69.154.203>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404281924.52be66a6@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
When do you plan to present any of these "sophisticated" objections to a
peer-reviewed journal?
Never.
That pretty much ends all credibility for the objections.
Was Darwin's 1859 _Origin of Species_ peer-reviewed?
Extensively.
If it was to go through a process of peer-review today, would it
survive the process and be published substantially unchanged?
I doubt it, since it's 150 years out of date, and everyone in the scientific community already knows it.
:-)
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 10:07:00 AM |
|
|
On 2004-04-29, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D96287B1C5Afstone69@207.69.154.201>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com:
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
What do you have besides inane or antiquated, long-since-refuted
objections to evolution?
Sophisticated, not-been-rebutted objections to the theory of natural
selection and to the allegation that life can arise from non-life
totally apart from the input of any intelligence.
At what point (if any) is intelligence required to form:
a proton from up, up, and down quarks
a neutron from up, down and down quarks
a hydrogen atom from proton and electron
other atoms from neutrons, protons, and electrons
methane from hydrogen and carbon
ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen
phosphates from phosphorus and oxygen
...
amino acids from molecules
nucleosides from molecules
nucleotides from molecules
sugars from other molecules
...
polypeptides from amino acids
DNA from deoxyribose, nucleotides and nucleosides
RNA from ribose, nucleotides and nucleosides
...
proteins from polypeptides
...
...
humans from ape ancestor
What (if anything) are the units of "intelligence?"
At what point (if any) do the laws of physics prevent greater complexity
in matter from forming requiring the input of "intelligence?"
In what way (if any) is "intelligence" used in the mathematical
descriptions of the laws of physics?
At what point (if any) do people get fed up with your substanceless
rhetoric and killfile you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 01:59:59 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...
snip
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
Let me ask you this:
Do you think the human hand is designed for grasping tools? I speak of
the number of bones, the arrangement and attachment of muscles and
other soft tissues, that sort of thing.
Is it well-designed for grasping and manipulating tools? Does it show
evidence of _intelligent_ design?
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:12:14 PM |
|
|
(Chris Thompson) wrote in message news:<1701a5c0.0404281103.6fd7f0d1@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
Let me ask you this:
Questions can be a wonderful thing.
Do you think the human hand is designed for grasping tools? I speak of
the number of bones, the arrangement and attachment of muscles and
other soft tissues, that sort of thing.
Is it well-designed for grasping and manipulating tools? Does it show
evidence of _intelligent_ design?
The human hand exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligent design. In my opinion, the human hand was designed by one
or more intelligent entities for, among other things, grasping. Some
of the things that the human hand can grasp (and sometimes during the
course of human history _has_ grasped) are tools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:20:57 PM |
|
|
Do you think the human hand is designed for grasping tools?
No.
Is it well-designed
No.
Does it show evidence of _intelligent_ design?
No.
Finally, while your instict towards the feeling of superiority
of humans is admirable, I'll assure you that we're all more
fragile and breakable than you'd rather know.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 08:09:43 PM |
|
|
In article <g8t090hs3r8c8gmh34isr0b8pqbg55m110@4ax.com>,
Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote:
<snip>
Finally, while your instict towards the feeling of superiority
of humans is admirable, I'll assure you that we're all more
fragile and breakable than you'd rather know.
C//
More fragile and breakable than I would like to know for sooth, and I
presume you too. How do we go to sleep at night or get into cars in the
morning, without repressing that knowledge?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 09:55:59 PM |
|
|
Finally, while your instict towards the feeling of superiority
of humans is admirable, I'll assure you that we're all more
fragile and breakable than you'd rather know.
More fragile and breakable than I would like to know for sooth, and I
presume you too. How do we go to sleep at night or get into cars in the
morning, without repressing that knowledge?
I'm sure we regularly do. My wife is an E.R. physician. She, who
has no option to surpress, often doesn't sleep.
C//
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 11:06:12 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
rockwallaby@hotmail.com (Chris Thompson) wrote in message news:<1701a5c0.0404281103.6fd7f0d1@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
Let me ask you this:
Questions can be a wonderful thing.
Do you think the human hand is designed for grasping tools? I speak of
the number of bones, the arrangement and attachment of muscles and
other soft tissues, that sort of thing.
Is it well-designed for grasping and manipulating tools? Does it show
evidence of _intelligent_ design?
The human hand exhibits the appearance of having been the product of
intelligent design. In my opinion, the human hand was designed by one
or more intelligent entities for, among other things, grasping.
How would an intelligently-designed grasping hand differ from an evolved grasping hand? There is much evidence that
the grasping hand evolved naturally. What indications do you have that it was designed?
Remember, if you challenge an existing hypothesis or theory, the onus is on *you* to provide convincing evidence to
support your hypothesis. Saying "it's obvious that ..." or "in my opinion ..." is not convincing evidence. And also
provide evidence that explains all other observations that the existing theories (descent with modification, etc.)
already explain.
Evolution has been accepted as a fact by the scientific community for 200 years. If you intend to dispute it, come
with evidence or don't bother.
Some
of the things that the human hand can grasp (and sometimes during the
course of human history _has_ grasped) are tools.
Not a good example. Humans design tools to fit their own hands.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 02:09:23 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...<snipped>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
On the contrary, biology strongly exhibits the appearance of an
unintelligent designer. Biological systems are never innovative. Every
system is a modified version of some previous system. There is no
original thought, no lateral thinking, no creativity.
Consideration of nature as 'design' is (in my view) strong evidence
for evolution.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:17:52 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404281113.562d903d@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...<snipped>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
On the contrary, biology strongly exhibits the appearance of an
unintelligent designer.
I'm curious, are you aware of any published statements saying that
biology does not exhibit the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence?
If so, what are the sources of some of those published statements?
Biological systems are never innovative.
Was the first living organism [RF]"innovative"?
Every
system is a modified version of some previous system.
Was the first living organism [RF]"a modified version of some previous
system"?
If "yes," please briefly describe that [RF]"previous system."
There is no
original thought, no lateral thinking, no creativity.
Consideration of nature as 'design' is (in my view) strong evidence
for evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 05:09:18 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404281921.2b30ef5e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404281113.562d903d@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...<snipped>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
On the contrary, biology strongly exhibits the appearance of an
unintelligent designer.
I'm curious, are you aware of any published statements saying that
biology does not exhibit the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence?
If so, what are the sources of some of those published statements?
No, that's my own opinion. I think for myself.
Biological systems are never innovative.
Was the first living organism [RF]"innovative"?
I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis? I don't
know how life started.
Every
system is a modified version of some previous system.
Was the first living organism [RF]"a modified version of some previous
system"?
If "yes," please briefly describe that [RF]"previous system."
I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis? I don't
know how life started.
There is no
original thought, no lateral thinking, no creativity.
Consideration of nature as 'design' is (in my view) strong evidence
for evolution.
So how do you explain the extreme conservatism, the lack of
originality and the complete inabilty to think laterally?
RF
PS. Saying 'I don't know' does not mean 'God did it'. It means 'I
don't know'. Uncertaintly is what drives science. If you want to be
told that something is completely, 100% true, stick to religion. The
problem you will find is that many of those 100% truths are mutually
exclusive. Which is why I prefer science. It's honest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 01:15:24 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404290213.26629e71@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404281921.2b30ef5e@posting.google.com>...
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404281113.562d903d@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...<snipped>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
On the contrary, biology strongly exhibits the appearance of an
unintelligent designer.
I'm curious, are you aware of any published statements saying that
biology does not exhibit the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence?
If so, what are the sources of some of those published statements?
No, that's my own opinion. I think for myself.
Is your opinion a well-informed opinion?
If so, what are 2 of the better lines of evidence in support of that
opinion of yours about biology?
Biological systems are never innovative.
Was the first living organism [RF]"innovative"?
I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis? I don't
know how life started.
When you said [RF]"Biological systems are never innovative" I didn't
see any exclusion of the very first biological system.
Is it your opinion that life started through
totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?
If so, what are 2 of the better lines of evidence in support of your
opinion?
Every
system is a modified version of some previous system.
Was the first living organism [RF]"a modified version of some previous
system"?
If "yes," please briefly describe that [RF]"previous system."
I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis? I don't
know how life started.
There is no
original thought, no lateral thinking, no creativity.
Consideration of nature as 'design' is (in my view) strong evidence
for evolution.
So how do you explain the extreme conservatism, the lack of
originality and the complete inabilty to think laterally?
I don't know what is meant by your talk of the ability to [RF]"think
laterally."
Various sets of organisms appeared at various points in the earth's
history. The intelligent designer(s) of those biological organisms
exhibited much originality in introducing the varied/ different and
often unusual sets of organisms, and was not extremely conservative
through a sticking to doing only one creation event.
PS. Saying 'I don't know' does not mean 'God did it'. It means 'I
don't know'. Uncertaintly is what drives science. If you want to be
told that something is completely, 100% true, stick to religion.
In your view, is the following statement [RF]"completely, 100% true"?:
[Sagan]"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
The
problem you will find is that many of those 100% truths are mutually
exclusive. Which is why I prefer science. It's honest.
I agree with you that contradiction is an indication that something is
amiss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 04:26:35 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404291019.fcf003e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404290213.26629e71@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404281921.2b30ef5e@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404281113.562d903d@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...<snipped>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
On the contrary, biology strongly exhibits the appearance of an
unintelligent designer.
I'm curious, are you aware of any published statements saying that
biology does not exhibit the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence?
If so, what are the sources of some of those published statements?
No, that's my own opinion. I think for myself.
Is your opinion a well-informed opinion?
If so, what are 2 of the better lines of evidence in support of that
opinion of yours about biology?
Biological systems are never innovative.
Was the first living organism [RF]"innovative"?
I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis? I don't
know how life started.
When you said [RF]"Biological systems are never innovative" I didn't
see any exclusion of the very first biological system.
Is it your opinion that life started through
totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?
If so, what are 2 of the better lines of evidence in support of your
opinion?
The origin of biological systems is not the same as biological systems
themselves. Abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study: it leaves no
evidence. The remains of fragile molecules can't survive for 3.5
billion years. Creating life in a laboratory proves only that we can
create life in a laboratory. It proves that life can arise without
recourse to supernatural agencies, but not the way in which life
actually originated. This makes it, in my opinion, a rather sterile
subject of investigation. It seems to me highly unlikely that we will
ever have much direct evidence of the origins of life on this planet.
That does not mean that 'God did it' by invoking supernatural causes.
Every
system is a modified version of some previous system.
Was the first living organism [RF]"a modified version of some previous
system"?
If "yes," please briefly describe that [RF]"previous system."
I thought we were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis? I don't
know how life started.
There is no
original thought, no lateral thinking, no creativity.
Consideration of nature as 'design' is (in my view) strong evidence
for evolution.
So how do you explain the extreme conservatism, the lack of
originality and the complete inabilty to think laterally?
I don't know what is meant by your talk of the ability to [RF]"think
laterally."
Design as practiced by humans is a process very dependent on lateral
thinking. Good design comes from 'thinking outside the box'. It comes
from putting together elements in a novel way. It depends on leaps of
insght and imagination.
Look at the way in which design of cars is occasionally changed by
inovations. Mounting the engine sideways, for example. That is an
example of lateral thinking, and a step without intermediates which is
never found in nature.
Various sets of organisms appeared at various points in the earth's
history. The intelligent designer(s) of those biological organisms
exhibited much originality in introducing the varied/ different and
often unusual sets of organisms, and was not extremely conservative
through a sticking to doing only one creation event.
Every organism is a modified version of a previous organism. They
didn't suddenly appear from nothing. That is why all organism on this
planet are related to each other. That's why the 'design'of organisms
is constrained by their evolutionary history. That's why wings are
modified forelimbs, and limbs are modified fins, and feathers are
modified scales and so on.
I can't envisage an 'intelligent' designer who never inovates!
PS. Saying 'I don't know' does not mean 'God did it'. It means 'I
don't know'. Uncertaintly is what drives science. If you want to be
told that something is completely, 100% true, stick to religion.
In your view, is the following statement [RF]"completely, 100% true"?:
[Sagan]"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
I have no idea if that is true or not. How is it testable? I don't
know if Sagan thought that was '100% true'. Do you? I would guess
that, as a scientist, he didn't. 'I don't know' is honest.
The
problem you will find is that many of those 100% truths are mutually
exclusive. Which is why I prefer science. It's honest.
I agree with you that contradiction is an indication that something is
amiss.
Then think about your own contradicitons, and tell us what you don't
know.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
29 Apr 2004 11:19:36 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0404281113.562d903d@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404280455.5b55f859@posting.google.com>...<snipped>
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
On the contrary, biology strongly exhibits the appearance of an
unintelligent designer.
I'm curious, are you aware of any published statements saying that
biology does not exhibit the appearance of having been the product of
intelligence?
If so, what are the sources of some of those published statements?
AFAIK, there are no "published statements saying that biology does not exhibit the appearance of having been the product
of intelligence." Or saying that it doesn't appear of having been the product of Greek gods; or the product of aliens,
or astrology, or a rip in the space-time continuum. Science deals with evidence, and there is no evidence for those
other hypotheses.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:08:51 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
I dunno David. A crashed UFO about 3.5-4 billion years old with detailed
notes on making primitive cells from prebiotic soup? That may sound
facetious, but it isn't far off.
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
No David, I do not. Biology exhibits all the appearances of being modified
by genetic change through multiple generations due to various pressures.
Again, if you can provide evidence for the designer, other than your own
preconceptions, then please do so.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: The Weekly World News Weighs in on Evolution |
28 Apr 2004 10:02:44 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8vifl.170.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:51:28 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8ub0b.2d8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:29:07 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc8qms9.2jk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:26:46 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in message news:<slrnc8fgem.60b.lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:09:20 +0000 (UTC),
RobinGoodfellow <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]
Besides, a part of me refuses to accept that this article could be for
real. While bitter experience has taught not to place upper bounds on
human ignorance and stupidity, the idealist in me still wants to scream
"No one can possibly be that clueless!" That's why I secretly hope that
most of the TO creationists are actually bored graduate students,
looking for creative ways to delay working on their respective theses.
Sorry to disillusion you, all Young Earth Creationists really are idiots.
Paul Nelson is a YECist. Is he an [LM]"idio[t]"?
YECs deny reality. Either they are idiots or they are insane. You pick,
David.
Another possibility is that a YECist is simply unaware of the strong
evidence for an old earth and old universe.
Yet another possibility is that a YECist is adverse to listening to
the evidence for an old earth and an old universe from individuals
that loudly proclaim that it is a well-demonstrated _fact_ that the
first lifeform and all subsequent lifeforms arose and developed
through totally mindless processes, when actually the evidence for
that proposition is not forthcoming.
Since you have not provided any evidence for a designer, science can only go
with what it has. When you provide said evidence for god/alien/whatever
then we'll talk.
[AC]"you have not provided any evidence for a designer"
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
I dunno David. A crashed UFO about 3.5-4 billion years old with detailed
notes on making primitive cells from prebiotic soup? That may sound
facetious, but it isn't far off.
Those _aliens'_ notes on making cells could not possibly be evidence
for the intelligent design of the _first_ lifeform.
You didn't even attempt to answer my other two questions. I'll ask
the questions again:
Speaking theoretically, what hypothetical evidence-- if any-- would
you accept as being evidence for an intelligent designer(s) of:
physics?
biology?
the first lifeform?
In short, "insane" and "idiot" don't cover all the possibilities.
Other possibilities are "unaware" and "hesitant to listen to
individuals that are glaringly and brashly wrong on an important
point."
Fine, we'll add "ignornant". Anyone who ignores evidence just because they
don't like who is saying it is stillq ualifies as an idiot or a lunatic.
Do you agree with me that biology strongly exhibits the appearance of
having been the product of intelligent design?
No David, I do not.
Have you read Dawkins's _The Blind Watchmaker_?
Dawkins is of the opinion that biology strongly exhibits the
appearance of having been the product of intelligent design, and he
argues therein quite cogently for that opinion.
Biology exhibits all the appearances of being modified
by genetic change through multiple generations due to various pressures.
What are the names of 3 of these [AC]"various pressures"?
For each of the 3 [AC]"various pressures" you mentioned, what are 2 of
their more noteworthy observable effects?
Again, if you can provide evidence for the designer, other than your own
preconceptions, then please do so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
