|
RagnarRedbeard1408 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
William Dembski is a total darsh!
ccheng21 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
William Dembski refused to defend his very own idea of Intelligent Design under oath in the Dover trial. Shows how much faith he has in his own beliefs.
drdirs (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
And much like Newton studied gravity without having a clue what gravity was, we can study the events of the early universe without knowing where the "infusion" of energy came from, or if it had to come from anywhere, or even what energy fundamentally is.
It's only in the eyes of creationists that the deficiencies of science become defects. Cause whatever the Godmongers think about science, it still works for the rest of us.
drdirs (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Causality is scientific, but science is not strictly about causality. Specifically in this context, whatever hypothesis you could possibly conjure up about the beginning of all things, somewhere in there must necessarily be a violation of causality, unless you suggest that time is eternal in the past (e.g. cyclic universe), which explains just as little.
But Big Bang doesn't claim to know the "cause of the first cause" anyway, it's just the study of the very early universe.
MJH28S5 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I thought Bill was being given the final word? Odd...
What happened to Causality being scientific? The overwhelming best scientific evidence and increasingly so, points toward the standard Big Bang model, and science states that no effect such as the Big Bang can take effect without a Cause. Science. There is also a one in 10 to the power of 80 chance of the second law of Thermodynamics not working. Are we still discussing Science?
See Dr.Hugh Ross, Dr.William Lane Craig for Science.
drdirs (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There is no "chain" of life. It's a tree. I suppose next you'll be shouting "why are there still monkeys".
Speciation has been observed many times, and it's also the only mechanism that provides ANY solid explanation for the fossil record and the DNA evidence.
What's more, genetically driven descent with modification can be simulated easily and shown in computer models to result in speciation - you're not just disagreeing with biology but with all of science and logic.
kaysandesses (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
" if evolution were proven wrong that doesnt make ID correct by default."
Excellent point; one which nearly all fundies miss.
With the ever increasing knowledge in genetics I think we'll only see Theory of Evolution get "stronger".
memoryofakiss (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
also claiming evolution needs to prove things does nothing for the ID movement since that would be a false dichotomy.
even if evolution were proven wrong that doesnt make ID correct by default.
of course with the massive mountain of evidence which supports Evolutionaty theory it's unlikely that the theory as a while would every be completely discarded.
twodayslatertdl (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
evolution isn't BLIND or a TRIAL AND ERROR process. it occurs by natural selection which allows species with the best mutations and best features to reproduce and evolve into more adept species
studiomarcel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I liked the 'BLIND' evolution bit. According to the old testicle, this god created the heavens and the earth in the bleedin' dark. While evolution jumpstarted with the evolvement of licht-sencetive cells. Argh! those ID idiots make me fart. Ramen. |
