Posted on 04/17/2009 7:59:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Excellent!
There’s hope for you!!!
What evidence would falsify your Evo-religion?
The opposite is true. But that won't stop its defenders from claiming otherwise; this article is proof of that.
A better theory with better evidence. That’s what sets it apart from religion.
Even the head of the NCSE, Dr. Eugenie Scott, admits the Evos get their hind-parts handed to them in debates with creation scientists. I have watched it happen many times, and it sure ain’t pretty for the Evos!:
“Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of “good” debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually “to defend good science” or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can’t figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution — and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
OK, you supplied one, so I’ll supply one: An irrational universe that did not follow fixed laws would falsify creation.
PS I am going on a hike to enjoy and marvel at God’s wondrous creation. Catch you in about an hour or so...
All the best—GGG
She goes on to explain why this happens, and it isn't because the creationists' arguments are better.
It kind of reminds me of arguments between Truthers and non-Truthers. Those aren't pretty either, and the Truthers almost always win the debates, much for the same reasons as Scott lays out.
Apparently you're not supposed to look at the possibility that the supernatural being created life with the ability to evolve.
You ignore that God may have been the one who set evolution in motion - why?
Which of the two creation stories should I ignore?
What do you mean by the second law? Please remember that they Sun counts as an external energy source when responding.
Then you haven’t checked. I found this in 3 minutes of searching.
“Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).”
*God is a better communicator than most*
Then how do you explain all the different versions of his Word?
Some Creation Scientists say the entire Universe rotates around Earth.
That is demonstrably divergent from reality.
Granted decades ago.
Reciprocation (at the government school level) would be appreciated.
But I'm not holding my breath on that if your hypocritical tyranny is representative of Science's respect for freedom:
"Society in general has come to agree with the theory of evolution and the science underlying it, which is why society has deemed it necessary to be taught in our public schools in lieu of religious based beliefs."
Ah yes, I've read of this General Society fellow. The last time I saw him he was awarding Al Gore (and the wiser-than-God scientists from the IPCC) a Nobel prize for the best anti-freedom pseudo-science of 2007.
"Our younger generations are hesitant to support Republicans or conservatives in general as they are not keen upon being forced to subscribe to religious beliefs. Remove that stigma from the stereotype the left has successfully pigeonholed the right into and you will see conservatism once again looked upon favorably, IMO"
Let's see here...according to you, kids believe something which is quite observably NOT true about 'Republicans or conservatives' (that being that we want to mandate faith.) And your remedy to their ignorance is to mandate your faith at the exclusion of competing theory?
Would elective courses examining creation theory be a threat to your venerable Gen. Society and his government thugs?
I've already asked Private Freedom and he's cool with that idea.
How do you reconcile this statement *An irrational universe that did not follow fixed laws would falsify creation.* with your belief that both nuclear decay and the speed of light have change by a 1000% or more?
Which creation theory would you teach? Some of the major supporters of that theory don’t include Catholics as Christians - should they be allowed to state such in schools?
Devolution?
Actually, we seem to be talking about two different aspects of communication. Mine was a comment on His style. Nothing to do with different translations or anything like that.
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.