Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Banned

gregw74's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. I agree Phil, 100%. I realize that it had nothing to do with evolution, you're totally right. I was thinking from an atomic and cosmological perspective, that's all. ID within those domains, aside from biology. But he still could have been referring to something else.
  2. Phil... "...I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead." - Einstein "God does not play dice with the Universe" - Einstein Einstein was clearly a scientist, not a theologian or philosopher. It may have been an idea he struggled with, a God of any kind, like many. Comprehending an infinite intellect is certainly a challenge for any one of our finite minds. That latter quote, was taken as a perspective on design. Though, I suppose he may have been suggesting otherwise. If that's the case, I do apologize if this was taken out of context. I have no problem accepting that. This is mainly for those who put great faith into the results of chance, such as our planet being the result of a cosmic lottery. I wonder if the same evolutionary mechinism formed our planet?? Hmmm.... Afterall, you need a planet such as ours and all the laws that have thus far been defined to even start and conclude such a long chain of diverse life. It's an excellent area to delve before even considering our own existance and the existance of other species. I will end with, "consider the probabilities", for the odds are not in our favor in establishing the very core foundations of life. It's just something to take into consideration, that's all.. Some figures of probability to chew on. http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts/TXThome1.php http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts/TXThome2.php Hey Buck-a-roo!.... Enjoy yourself in Guam. I'm sure it'll be fascinating
  3. This is irrelevant. Christianity nor any other religion is even endorsed or mentioned in the theory. That's not even the goal of ID, though many would like to propose it as such so that they can say there's a violation of religion and science. It's simply a universal concept. A theory has to originate somewhere? If it originated in Russia, Europe, or the Galapagos Islands, would that make ID any more palatable? I doubt it. Every "evolutionary biologist"? sure, but it cannot be said that every biologist is convinced of evolution. Is a biologist who doesn't support evolution considered a non-biologist?? Anyway, there are quite a few biologists listed in this document. Hit CTRL+F within the file and search for "bio". Do the Ph.d's of the biochemists and biologists serve as a red flag that they have "limited knowledge" or could it simply be that the theory isn't convincing to them, despite the studies revealed on evolution? I don't buy the "limited knowledge" argument. Even Einstein saw design despite his research in the realms outside of biology. Is he considered a crack-pot as well? We won't go there though since he wasn't a biologist. ID isn't just limited to biology but it's easily applicable. Just as important, it can also be applied on an atomic and cosmological level all the same. But I digress.
  4. What do you mean that Mokele has been patient with me?? LOL!!!! You have got to be kidding me. In his first response, he accused me of editing the video clip. Give me a break. Right from the get go he called me out as being dishonest. I wasn’t looking to ruffle any feathers (or scales rather?? LOL, just kidding) or "preach" as you call it. I’ve seen nothing but judgment against my character by Mokele, and false ones at that. It's the original clip! Big deal! His arrogant responses have been nothing short of humurous. His credentials were lost from the very beginning, or at least much more difficult to accept. There IS a difference between a "Creationist" and someone who supports ID. A Creationist backs their ideas around what Genesis says (usually literally). ID isn't restricted to any religion, religious text, or theistic beliefs, just the facts, facts that suggest intentional design. I am supporting ID in this thread, not Creationalism. I do no totally discredit evolution either, please don't get me wrong. There are obvious occasions and evidence of evolution, to a degree. I just don't see how it can be stretched so far as to include progression from one species to another, even the origin of the first life form which evolutionists often claim, or gloss over. It’s the discovery of design and high complexity that defies chance and gradual progression. In the end, there may be religious implications but that's where science ends and religion/philosophy begins. If one chooses to cross that bridge, so be it, but they are not obligated. I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone. Again, this was not my intent whatsoever. It’s a touchy topic, I understand that, but I think it’s one worth delving into. Even if ID isn’t taught, the gaps in evolution should at least be discussed and debated and it shouldn’t be referred to as fact because it’s simply too general. Often times, it doesn’t even clarify that the origins of life (not transitions) are at least unknown or unproven and that the origin of such intricate biochemical systems is yet to be explained by chance and random mutations. It should further be clarified that the transitions between species is still being researched. That’s the least bit that ID'ists are asking.
  5. There is also the piece that was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. More... Based on the following I hardly see Wells as a crack-pot, or Behe (why the name calling anyway? Now, who's the kid again?): "Dr. Jonathan Wells earned two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, taught biology at California State University in Hayward, and worked as the supervisor of a medical laboratory. He has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is the author of “Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong” (Regnery Publishing, 2000). " I suppose it's more entertaining for you and the others to just call them "crack-pots"? Seems rather juvenile. So I suppose if all else fails, make personal attacks to better qualify your credentials and belittle those you don't agree with. I fail to see the effectiveness in that. I hope your family members and friends don't disagree with very often, for their own sake.
  6. LOL... 1.) the point of providing all the names of the 400 was to show you that there clearly are scientists who are skeptical of evolution, along with the names you will find their associated field of study. Just open the document and take a look, you will find plenty in the field of biology. My point wasn't to illustrate a particular awe-inspiring number, but to counter your assumption that... ------------------- 2.) Scientist's have submitted papers relevant to the ID theory and have had them published. Two in the past nine months, so don't say that they haven't submitted any. This was just after a quick search. The article which discusses the most recent submisssion ------------------- 3.) If a 60% of doctors are skeptical (or "ill-educated", if you'd rather) , including the 400 scientists? How much education is it going to take for a grade school teacher to fully understand the concept and relay the information to their students?? ...furthermore, having any hope that the students will understand it?
  7. I wouldn't be so quick to propose this, at least 400 scientist's have gone on the record as expressing doubts about Darwin's theory. 400 who are skeptical Original article There are over 400 here who (many at the doctorate level) were willing and had the opprotunity to go on the record. This is beyond a few. This number has only been on the increase. On a side note: One poll found "...that 60 percent of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief...". But they're only doctors and not biologists. Right? ...and so they lack the necessary credentials? Original article Also... here is the letter which was sent "... to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University."
  8. What about the growing number of professors at the doctorate level who are skeptical of evolution's claims and it's accounting for the complexity of life. There are biochemists and the like who are certainly skeptical of it. One of which is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter was actually sent to the Kansas State School Board by one it's members endorsing and enouraging the critique of evolution and it's cliams. Essentially, It's a theory and there are scientists who clearly have doubts about it.
  9. The argument against polyploidy producing new information or evolutionary mutations is elaborated in the following articles, with scientific data and not assumptions: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
  10. So the origin of life remains a mystery in the evolutionist's eyes? Evolution suggests and theorizes only the transitions from one species to another? Doesn't evolution deal with the origins of life at it's most basic chemical level up through today (from one species to the next)? I suppose evolutionists delve into different levels of evolution and not always at the chemical level? I don't know.
  11. Phil... I greatly appreciate your respect that I'm not being dishonest with what I posted. I do respect the topic enough not to throw false ideas on the table. It's a waste of time. Though, if ID is such a bad idea and waste of time talking about (as many suggest), why are scientists more and more begining to have doubts about Darwinism. I will say that I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, but macro-evolution seems like a hard bargin based on the very discoveries found through science. There just isn't conclusive evidence. I never even had a problem with accepting evolution in the past, until I actually started devling into the topic. As a theist, evolution or creation are fair game for me. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I say this as to clarify that this is not a matter of faith for me. More and more, it seems like it takes a greater leap of faith to assume life resulted by chance, then by a designer.
  12. Maybe Dawkins only made it through the freshmen level?? This might explain everything! LOL. Just kiddin. Now that would be funny, were it true. More importantly though, it would be dishonest but that's immoral and morality has no place in science (but that's another topic altogether). I must say, I like how I was given the benefit of the doubt by assuming I'm dishonest instead of a credible person. Unfrotunately no one can take credit for such a prank since this is the original clip. On second thought, I take that back, we can give credit to Dawkins. It's alight that he didn't have an answer. Not sure who does if Dawkins doesn't. The truth of the matter is that he didn't have an example to illustrate one of the fundemental theories behind evolution. This should speak volumes since such exmples should be plentiful given Dawkins calibur and vast knowledge of the subject.
  13. Rather comical is Dawkins response to the question, asking to provide "....one single example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that increases the information in the genome" The video clip: http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/video/frogPrince.aspx As you will notice, he doesn't provide one and instead summarizes his perspective on evolution. Per the Orginal AIG Article: "Dawkins brings up yet again the false claim that 'evolution by natural selection is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity.' "
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.