SJAB1958 wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

SJAB1958 wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

SJAB1958 wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

SJAB1958 wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

SJAB1958 wrote:

Having examined one of Casey Luskin's articles on the Internet (see
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm), I have discovered a major
flaw in the alleged scientific theory of intelligent design, it doesnt
attempt to identify the designer.

Now according to the scientific method, any theory must identify the
cause of the phenomenon that it is attempting to explain.

In other words: evolution theory is bogus science since it
claims to assiduously avoid identifying First Cause.

You guys is too much.

Poor Roy, I wasnt on about the so-called "First Cause", the theory of
evolution does identify the cause of the changes within the populations
of living organisms, it is called natural selection and is influenced
by environmental pressures and random mutations of the genomes of the
organisms within that said environment. Therefore your arguement that
evolution theory is "bogus science" is a non sequiteur.

"Primordial soup" is not bogus?

Hmm, first you claim that evolutionary theory is bogus, now when you
can counter my reasoning in favour of evolutionary theory, you now go
on to talking about the "Primordial Soup", the origin of the first
living organisms - as tentatively suggested by the hypothesis of
abiogenesis - is nothing to do with the evolutionary theory, which
examines and attempts to explain the processes by which that first
population of living organisms became the diversity of living things we
see today.

Studying effects without knowing their causes is how myths
are made.

Well that sums up the myths of the Bible and other religious texts
pretty well doesnt it?

Science is not exempt from concocting religious fallacies.

Science is not involved in concocting religious fallacies, but I dont
deny that some theories have been proven wrong by the discovery of
phenomena that contradict the theory thus falsifying it.

How conveniently you forget about Multiple Universes; Big
Bangs; Extraterrestrials; not to mention, Social Darwinism;
Secular Humanism, etc..

But you seem remarkably capable of ignoring the fact that evolution
theory examines and attempts to explain what has happened to living
organisms since they came into being, and the causes of evolution are
quite clear, random mutations and changes in the environment as I
previously explained.

Is that how the myth of 'one species changing into another'
began? BAGL

Are you denying that random mutations and environmental changes can
have an effect on the expression of an organisms genome?

No, I'm saying that 'one species changing into another' is myth.

If you take a single population and separate it in to two groups
exposing each to a different environment, the environmental pressures
will result in different mutations being favoured in the two different
groups.
The probability that these two groups will over time become
reproductively incompatible approaches unity, in other words is very
likely to happen. And it is only reasonable to assume that these two
groups that shared a common origin would then have to be defined as
different species.

By whose definition?

This is not a myth but an observable fact in the wild and easily
demonstrated in the laboratory.

Sorry but stories about one species changing into another in
the wild are just so stories.

And as I also previously mentioned the hypothesis of abiogenesis is a
tentative attempt to explain the origin of life which is a completely
different matter to the evolution of living organisms.

Repeat: Studying effects without knowing their causes is how
myths are made.

Are you deliberately ignoring the evidence of my statements in favour
of your personal religious beliefs, or are you as Kent Hovind would say
"dumb on purpose"?

There is no conclusive evidence in anything you've said or
cut and pasted that confirms the idea that one species can
change into another... live with it.

Perhaps you would like to dispute matters rationally, rather than just
making assinine comments.

Rationality is a one word oxymoron when faced with religious
fundamentalists such as yourself.

How can someone be a religious fundamentalist when they are prepared to
discuss things rationally with a person of an opposing view who chooses
not to discuss things rationally?

Self questioning is good.