Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

Very, very little help. Other than...God I hate saying this...other than...arrrrg...other than Haeckal...how have creationists corrected the ToE? And let me point out that my disdain for mentioning this has absolutely nothing to do with who "discovered" and/or "who criticized" the error. It's simply that I am sick (to the point of popping a vessel in my head) of fucking reading about it time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again from randman! Of course, we all know that the biggest critics of evolutionary theory are evolutionary biologists themselves. More "correcting" of the theory has been as a result of additional research than any creationist criticism(s). blah, blah, blah. That fucking horse is dead randman.Hey Admins...can't this be stopped? He has brought this bull shit up in every fucking thread he has participated in since the whole thing got started. How long are you going to let him continue to do this? I know I'm going to regret this...but what ole myths are those randman? And don't mention Haeckal...please...for the love of God...don't mention Haeckal!

Have you read any of the transcripts from the Dover trial? Perhaps you should...and maybe you should focus specifically on Behe's testimony.But let me ask you this: What facts? What facts are put forth by Behe? How do we test for a designer? What is the mechanism? To say that Wilson and Watson base their conclusions on assumptions while Behe uses facts is laughable randman. You need to step back and do some critical reading.Let me also ask you this: If mutations are non-random...that is to say, if mutations are the result of a designer, then why did it take so friggen long? Why did it take 3-4 million years to get to this point? And why even use mutations? Why couldn't this designer (God) just poof us into existence? Why go through all the trouble of mutation after mutation after mutation. It makes no sense. And why are you putting such extreme limitations on the abilities of this designer? What about bad/inefficient designs? Basically, randman, what I'm after is where do you draw the line? What is designed and what is not? How can you tell?But most importantly, go read the transcripts. They cast a bright light on the flaws of Behe and intelligent design.Here's a link: Page not found | National Center for Science Education

But how can the sun shine from one point? Careful now, think about it before you answer.Let me help you out. If the Sun does indeed rotate around the Earth (which itself must be stationary), then by stopping the Sun, it would shine from one point for a bit longer than normal. If, however, the Earth rotates and also revolves around the Sun, what good...or better yet...what meaning is there in stopping it (the Sun)? Relative to the Earth, it's not moving remember? So the only way to get the Sun to appear to stay in one spot for a longer period of time is to stop the Earth from rotating. We don't get Sun rises and Sun sets because we revolve around the Sun, nor because the Sun revolves around the Earth. We get sun rises and sun sets because we (the Earth) rotate. Stopping the Sun would have no effect. In order to get the Sun to remain in one place, God would have had to have stopped our rotation.Or . if you accept that the Earth rotates (and I assume you do), and you want to deny that the only way to get the Sun to appear stationary is to stop our rotation (despite what the Bible says), then the only other way to make it appear as though the Sun remains stationary would be for the Sun to start to revolve around the Earth at exactly the same speed of the Earths rotation. Is that what you are suggesting the bible says happened?

What total nonsense randman. I did not resort to theological arguments. I asked you to answer some basic questions. You are the one putting forth theological arguments randman. What do you think ID is? It most certainly is not scientific, seeing as how it admittedly claims that some intelligent being created things. That sounds like a theological argument to me randman . how do you see it?Actually, here's what I wrote:Now, to my eyes, I did not put forth any sort or argument. I asked questions.Here's what you said in post 196:Behe presented facts? Well a Federal judge saw it another way. But still I gave you the opportunity to present us with these "facts", and instead you did your typical dodge and accused me of something I most certainly did not do...namely, presenting theological arguments. You do this all the time randman. You seem to ignore whatever is written and instead resort to personal attacks and then somehow relate it all back to Haeckel.Haeckel this, Haeckel that, Haeckel another thing. We could be in a thread discussing why we don’t like head-cheese, or why puppies are so damned cute, and you’d fucking bring up Haeckel and blame him for one thing or another completely unrelated to the topic on hand.Puppies are cute:
“randman replies with: Personally I think kittens are cuter than puppies . but we’ll never know the truth cuz the bastard Haeckel lied about embryos 125 years ago . damm him!”It’s getting really really old randman. Let it go . please. Or at least limit it to the relative threads and/or in response to specific questions.Anyway, back to the topic. It comes down to this; Can you or can you not supply us with these facts that Behe (or anyone else for that matter) puts forth to support an intelligent designer? It's a simple request randman. Will these facts be something that can be tested? Will we be able to conduct experiments that will show support of these facts? Will the tests be repeatable? You know what I mean randman...will these great and wonderful facts be supported in any way by the scientific method? Very good randman...you're correct, I cannot muster good scientific arguments to support ID because none exist. There are however, copious amounts of scientific evidence in support of the ToE. And I put forth NO theological arguments.Wait . are you asking me to provide scientific arguments against ID? Well, since a great deal of ID follows right along with the ToE, up until we get to some arbitrary, constantly shifting, non-definable magic point (beyond which we should look no further because only God could have done it), well that is something science cannot completely eliminate. We do not address Devine concepts. We cannot disprove God, nor do we care to, nor do we attempt to. What we can (and do) do, is find natural explanations for natural phenomenon that do not require the “Goddidit” answer.For example: Behe claims that the bacterium flagella could not have evolved. Science has shown how it could. Behe claims that our immune system could not have evolved. Science has shown how it could. Behe claims that our blood clotting system could not have evolved. Science has shown how it could. Here’s what you need to understand randman. We certainly cannot prove with 100% certainty that our hypotheses about how the above mentioned systems could have evolved are correct. No one knows how it truly happened. But what science has shown is how it could have happened . that there’s no need to invoke an intelligent designer. We have not yet reached that point beyond which we cannot continue to ask questions, design and conduct experiments and find scientifically plausible explanations for what we observe. I doubt we ever will.Yet that is what you are asking us to do. You want us to stop looking, to stop asking, to stop testing, and to instead just blindly accept that the answers cannot be known because they are the work of God. Wow! And what's even more disturbing, is that you want this explanation to be viewed a scientifically valid. And you want this taught to our children as valid science...despite a complete inability and/or desire to in anyway provide us with scientific explanations.Here's how I see randman, the teacher, in front of “his” 9th grade biology class:"Hi boys and girls. Hey, has everyone here cut themselves at one time or another? I sure you have. Well today children, we will learn why your blood clotted when you cut yourself":
Get your pencils ready...this may get a bit confusing and pretty in-depth:God did it!"“Wow...wasn't the neato?”“Hey, has everyone gotten sick at one time or another? I'm sure you have. Well guess what, now we'll learn why when you got sick, you got better:
Pencils at the ready?God did it!""Whew...boy that one sure was tough to explain.”“Hey boys and girls, can all of you see me up here? I'm sure you can. Now we'll learn how your vision got so good...the best of any created animal...expect for birds...and well, squid too:
Anyway, get those pencils ready again:God did it!"“Man-o-man...this is pretty tough stuff! How you boys and girls holding up? If any of this seems too confusing, just raise your hand and I’ll try to explain it in even less detail, ok?”“I see that we’re almost out of time, so let’s just cover one more topic and then you will have learnt all the biology you’ll ever need to know:We’re gong to learn why your teacher ran out of gas on his way to work today.Write this down, it is probably the most important thing you'll learn today. It proves beyond any doubt that the Theory of Evolution is complete crap:It was the friggen Haeckel. That S.O.B. lied about embryos 125 years ago and as a result . I ran out of gas today! Plus, it completely disproves evolution"“Class dismissed”