| Subject: Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs. VESTED INTERESTS. |
| From: Pastor Dave |
| Date: 09/06/2005, 16:45 |
| Newsgroups: soc.history.what.if,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.christnet,alt.agnosticism |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 01:28:11 -0400, "Lajos Barnyi"
<lajos_baranyi@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
It is taught as fact.
OK, if you think so,Please cite at least 1 reference
that it is done so. I do not know a signel textbook,
a single scientis that would do that.
Evolution is called "a fact", while the mechanisms
are called "theory".
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Not even Dawkins, who is one of eh most fervwent evolutionarist.
"I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in
it with passionate conviction." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
And yet, there are no tests, nor observations that you
can make, that will satisfy them ...(evolutionarist to
condier the theory discredited)
Of course there are.
No, there are not.
Show a single system in which the progeny has nothing to do with the
parents... Or one in which the progeny is an exact copy of the parents.
Irrelevant. Microevolution. Humans having human
babies is not what you believe in, which is
macroevolution, which is a fairy tale.
<every time
you come up with a reason not to believe it, they play
dodge ball. For example, when the fossil record
doesn't demonstrate it, then all of the sudden, it's
the magic "mutations" that do it, even though no one
can demonstrate them. If you show that it could not
happen that quickly, especially since we don't see that happening
today, then it is said that the magic wand of "time" is needed.
I do not think that this is true. Coul dyou tell me an example?
And "time", even geologically long time scales ARE integral part of the
theory.
I.e., when you can't show it, claim "more time is
needed". What happened to all of that "time" that
you already had?
Any attempt to invoke a Creator in any hypothesis automatically
renders the hypothesis or theory unscientific,
No, it doesn't. That is what you would like people to believe.
No, it does and it is not matter of belief. It is matter of the basic rules
of scientific thought.
Macroevolution is a matter of faith. You can fool
yourself all you want. But you won't fool me.