Posted on 02/12/2009 10:24:51 AM PST by steve-b
This whole list can be lumped into one category, regarding creationism as believed by Christians:
Why would a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?
And the answer is simple and covered in a book by C. S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain, among other publications.
The Bible covers it too. A good example is morning sickness. God told Eve that childbirth would be “painful” yet she would still be horny. ;)
If they had discovered any real evidence that would rule out intelligent design, evolution wouldn’t still be called a theory, now would it?
That question might interest you, but a biologist would ask a different question:
Why do so many features in living things look like the result of small, incremental changes?
Exactly!
Yes it would, just as there are theories of gravity.
Why do you ask?
You on Crack?
And why do some people look less like apes than other people? Are the less-ape-resembling people more evolved than the more-ape-resembling people?
“Evolution” is moving in the opposite direction.....we are getting more hairless.......because we no longer need “hair” to survive the cold.
Polartec works quite well.
No, there are alternative theories to gravity that have been posited..an evolution in thought, if you will...however, gravity itself is still a law.
Will have to figure out why then I have to keep shaving my legs .... hmmmm
Nothing I guess, if you're real smart and want to show up the whole class with your grasp of dictionary definitions and semantic minutia. Do you think maybe it has something do do with ID? You know the 'D' part? Funny how people convinced of their own cognitive specialness, while preening to show it, often reveal astonishing obtuseness.
Heimlich and his technique are quite pertinent to the question of evolution
Apparently that's self evident. Maybe it's often kicked around by those with lot's of time on their hands to debate this stuff. But, for us pedestrian types, can you explain what a chicken bone in a throat has to do with the origin of man? And please don't respond with "What does the origin of man have to do with...?". That's just a variation of "I know you are, but what am I?"
Laws are formulas depicting a mathematical relationship among measurable phenomena. They are not explanations.
Theories are explanations. Theories never become laws.
Words like evolution, however, can have more than one usage and definition. Evolution can refer to various theories of descent with modification, and it can also refer to the forensically fact of common descent.
The point of the question is hippos supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, and there are no more dinosaurs. Horses supposedly evolved from Eohippus, and there are no more Eohippi. Yet, man is supposedly evolved from ape, but apes and man coexist.
Consistency, please.
I'm sorry that you have time to write, but not time to read. I'm sorry that you lack the curiosity to ask questions when confronted with an interesting juxtaposition.
I'm not aware of anyone in the intelligent design movement who talks about the nature or attributes of the "D". I read a lot of ID websites, and most will ban you if you ask who or what the "D" is.
Just as when Americans descended from Europeans, there was no requirement that Europeans all die off in totality for Americans to separate and grow distinct from them.
Similarly all the Romance languages of Europe developed from Latin, but they changed as time went on and people developed new accents, words, phrases, and rules of language. Latin is a “dead” language, but there was no requirement that it die out completely and not develop into Italian.
Similarly the apes that exist now were not the same species that existed way back when, just as Italian is not the same language as Latin.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wheat and wheat gluten are not inherently processed.
In poor areas of the world where wheat is the primary crop people eat a whole lot more of it than they do in wealthy countries.
Americans don’t actually eat all that much wheat.
Come on now.....they didn’t “outlaw” DDT.....they just said that if a developing country USED DDT....they’d lose all their international funding.
.....and malaria deaths immediately jumped tenfold.
I think Mount Rushmore is a good example. When you see it, you know instantly that it was designed, and is not the result of natural forces. How do you know that? What are you detecting? Do you think you could design a computer program that could sift through photographs and pick out which ones were the result of design? You can see how you might be able to start down the road to actually being quantitative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.