Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- bawjaws0
what's this rubbish?
- mrdobolina0
so this is becoming a daily thing then, huh?
- Mimio0
What do you think he has to hide?
- discipler0
kelpie, I'm all about following the evidence wherever it may lead. and I'm not necessarily an Young Earth Creationist. It's just that the evidence, taken as a whole, leads away from NeoDarwinism.
- mrdobolina0
discipler, were you interested in origins before or after you were born-again?
- flagellum0
A closed case?
- JazX0
ID seems all answers (and I agree that science needs to be critiqued - but then again MOST scientists would and ALL shgould agree with that).
TheTick
(Jan 6 06, 07:21)it's ok man, I like the way you think
- mrdobolina0
What line of work are you in, flagellum?
I am a web designer for a few newspapers and magazines. Trade publications mostly. Boring stuff.
- Mimio0
I understand that there are plenty of natural/gradual explainations that are missing from Behe's observations. Lots of things in world that break when you dismantle them, common sense really. Under that presupposition humans are irreducibly complex.
- Mimio0
Well, I atleast find that it requires less faith than ceationism(ID). I mean where are the "designers" now? ared they off designing other imperfect creatures? Why aren't they around now? surely they wouldn't need to be invisible, without leaving a shred of evidence they had been here, other than the circularly reasoning you might suggest.
- JazX0
Even f*cking better you wankers:
Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible.”
Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.
- flagellum0
graphic design.
apologetics.
- flagellum0
Tell:
- Scott Minnich
- Stephen Meyer
- Bill Dembski
- Jonathan Wells
- The over 500 people who signed the dissent list
- The however many other ID proponents in the scientific realm...that only Behe embraces IC.
- Nairn0
Just.
- Mimio0
You quote Behe's work (Darwin's Black Box) quite regulary discipler. FACT: DBB the book and research are not peer-reviewed.
Sorry dood, stick to the facts.
- Nairn0
Let.
- cphunk0
I'd really rather him just respond, but I have a feeling it just won't happen. Like I said above, I don't like assuming things (I probably have to a certain extent), but I think the forum has been presented to share a bit more about himself. He's choosing not to for a specific reason.
- Nairn0
It.
- flagellum0
"The ID guys are playing old Socratic Sophist tricks with ;language it seems to me by sayig that "See science is inaccurate here! So therefore it casts ALL of it into doubt!""
----
Not true. ID theorists and scientists are simply following the evidence where it leads. And they are not following evidence about age of the earth issues. That doesn't concern the science of ID. Not sure why that's so difficult for you, Tick.
-----
"I mean it seems to me they don't even grasp the fundamental principles that underly all of scientific enquiry to begin with. Science is all about finding better and better questions. Anything in science that doesn't lead you to another question is bad science. "
------You reeeaaally should actually learn what ID science states. ID is raising the better questions: like, how did digital code find it's way into the cell? and how can darwin's mechanism with all it's limitations produce the change which darwinists say it does? etc...
------
""Unreducably complex""
------
oooohhh, TIck. Please learn about it. lol