Your IP address is 188.8.131.52
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Beemer%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #7
|Date: 2006/04/19 14:59:11, Link|
Look Out! Lay person on site....lol
I have not studied genetics or any other field of science but I have a question to you all. †Picture me as the average Canadian guy with no formal scientific knowledge. I was brought up believing in evolutionary theory but without sufficient knowledge to argue the merits. Iíve tried to grasp the science of macroevolution by going over 1/3 of the pages within:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
(Excellent source of information.)
Iím sure I will read it over and over again throughout the next couple of years until I get a good working lay knowledge of evolution on the genetic level.
Why Iím bothering you good folks.
Iíve read articles on the avian flu which all use the word evolution several times. Some of the articles include ridicule of Intelligent Design folk that if it becomes necessary, needing to make a decision on whether or not to take the flu shot, when one exists.
What is within I.D. theory that would generate this point of ridicule?
What would go against the I.D. grain if H5N1 mutates into a human to human transmitable decease? Heck. I hardly know how to pose the question so in lay terms please.
I made a comment on a community forum that is all messed up and I would like to clean the mess up in order to properly inform those that would read the post.
Some background of what Iíve been reading about for the last 2 weeks:
Irreducible complexity which I feel is phylosophy
Specified complexity by Dembski which I figure, from what I read here on the Pandaís Thumb is nothing but bad math. ( Although I couldnít follow the math in question. )
Iíve found nothing but slant on Discovery Institutes articles with nothing much to add to real science when presenting evolution. They pose a lot of questions but do little to answer them.
Iíve found I canít find peer-review publications of any I.D. claims.
I.D. offers nothing that I can find digestable.
Iíve read a lot of the database here on Pandaís Thumb and will continue to read for a long time yet.
You know the old adage, ďBetter to have others think you stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.Ē I blew it big timeÖ.lol
So. Can anyone help me untangle my misconceptions? I would like to go back to the boards where I originally posted and correct my information as I donít feel I did the case for evolution any favours with what I posted there, so far.
|Date: 2006/04/30 14:15:59, Link|
I think I was looking to hard.
The simple answer is that I.D. thinks evolutionary science is bad science.
|Date: 2006/08/26 12:09:30, Link|
|So there "is" a fraction of hope that reason is making some headway.|
|Date: 2007/03/26 21:31:09, Link|
Bad link offered above.
Here's the good link.
|Date: 2008/05/25 12:18:31, Link|
A Law is descriptive.
A Theory is explanatory.
Not all theories become laws. The ToE is destined to remain a scientific theory which is not to be confused with the lay or common usage of the word theory being a hunch or a guess.