Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anti-CED] higher/lower forms....was: The ID General Theory [revis ed]

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... YOU are assuming that there is some magical distinction between macroevolution and microevolution based on a non-observed hypothetical barrier whose
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 30 Dec 2005 at 22:39, wayfaringman@... wrote:

      >
      >
      > In a message dated 12/30/05 9:41:36 AM Central Standard Time,
      > wayfaringman@... writes:
      > The ID General Theory includes the higher forms of biological
      > life.
      >
      > John:
      > What about the lower forms of biological life?
      > [Harry]
      > It doesn't include the lower forms of life yet
      > *************
      > Pi:
      > Any new scientific theory MUST explain both the old data and add
      > new knowledge. If ID cannot explain the old data ("lower" life
      > forms), then it is inadequate to be used to replace the existing
      > theory (evolution) which does.
      > [Harry]
      > You are assuming macroevolution is true when you equate lower
      > forms of life with old data. In any case The ID General Theory
      > covers all higher forms of life in which blood clotting occurs.

      YOU are assuming that there is some magical distinction between
      macroevolution and microevolution based on a non-observed
      hypothetical barrier whose existence you infer from a poorly-
      interpreted verse in Genesis. Moreover, Doolittle has SHOWN that
      the blood clotting system in lobsters EVOLVED from a fortuitous
      copy of the gene for egg yolk protein. As long as ID simply flat-
      out ignores the possibility of such exaptation, it is not science
      at all, but badly-done apologetics.

      > It could easily cover lower forms if an IC system was given
      > that applied to them. But this is really not necessary at this
      > time.

      Probably not, since ID is about rhetorical effect, not scientific
      quality.

      > In a way the special theory covers all life. Since living
      > cells > is common to all life. Perhaps the general theory is
      > the special one and the special theory is the general one. In
      > any case I have given a theory which all evolutionists thought
      > was impossible give.

      I have yet to see ANY theory that would qualify as a SCIENTIFIC
      theory coming from the IDist camp. What I do see is a lot of
      political machination, often followed by hasty ass-covering when
      the politics get too close to felony perjury for comfort.

      It's one thing to lie on the hustings. It's quite another to
      fib, under oath in court or in a court deposition.


      --

      Dave Oldridge
      ICQ 1800667
      VA7CZ



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 12/30/2005
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.