Posted on 05/06/2003 11:22:05 AM PDT by \/\/ayne
1. My fairytale (evolution) wins by majority vote.
2. Anyone who doesn't instantly accept my fairytale is an uneducated rube.
3. There is no God who will judge me.
I doubt these lines will draw laughter at the Judgement, but there may be some nervous throat clearing from those watching who had planned to use the same approach.
Only your predicatable, hackneyed, kneejerk, parroted barks.
Agree or disagree, each of his points comes with a briefly reasoned supporting case. Refute it, if you can.
I'd much rather you grow a new personality trait — candor — and tell us what threatens you most, personally, about the proposal that there is a holy God who judges you.
Dan
(My summary) This paper and others it cites shows both in vitro and in vivo that antibiotic resistance to cefotaxime, cefuroxime, ceftazadime, and aztreonam evolved by single amino-acid substitutions from an ancestral penicillinase gene. The authors conclusion (and I quote) "The authors take this result as evidence that their in vitro evolution technique accurately mimics natural evolution and can therefore be used to predict the results of natural evolutionary processes. "
Wow I think you could also use that one to prove how a big bang could happen.
Yes. Unlikely with a probability < statistical zero.
God created = stupid. Nothing created itself = science.
Frog-> Prince = fairy tale. Frog + time-> Prince = science.
God made man from dust = stupid. Nothing made man from rain on rocks = science.
God is eternal = ignorance. Dirt is eternal = science.
When you go to high school, you'll find biology and physics are quite distinct sciences.
There is a sub-set of lunatic loons who appear to wish the end of American society as we know it. Like the Nazis and the communists in Weimar Germany, they have a great deal in common as ... potential destroyers --- of the social fabric.
I have engaged in several debates in the last few days, and I admire FreeRepublic as a forum for the free expression of ideas, but the overwhelming presence of this bunch of loons is very off-putting.
Lenin is supposed to have said that capitalists would sell him the rope by which they were to be hung. The “anarcho-loons” on this forum would not bother to sell the rope but provide it as a public service.
401 posted on 05/06/2003 5:54 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
Chemestry and biology are subsets of physics.
Bullcookies.
Find the web page of any reputable university in the country (and this doesn't include Bob Jones). See how many have Departments of Chemistry (sp!) or Biology as subdivisions of Physics.
Study physics, not university web page departments.
All three are subsets of philosophy, which is why their doctoral degrees are called "PhDs."
It doesn't matter how universities draft their organizational charts, as that is as much, if not more, a matter of political infighting as it is logical structure.
Shall we return to the issue at hand...how evolution can't offer plausible explanations for love, beauty, common notions of morality, etc.?
I am not an atheist.
I have probably 20 or 30 physics textbooks of various levels, from elementary classical mechanics up through relativistic quantum mechanics, on my bookshelf. Not one has a chemistry or biology section.
You got anything but an uninformed assertion?
Perhaps you're not among "the most vocal proponents" referenced by the prior poster.
At any rate, I'd still like to hear a thoughtful evolutionary explanation for beauty, love, morality, etc.
Always be prepared to concede that their credentials are stellar, and make sure that you don't discriminate based on education, training and aptitude by affording more weight to a publication put together by experienced scientists than to a website put together by a copier repairman who lives in a trailer park.
And always, always, view philosophy as being the determinate factor in assessing the discoveries of science - because when a result is testable and fits with experimental observations of a long period of time, if it doesn't fit the philosophy, it just has to go.
Happy to be of service.
;)
You better first tell us why it should. I don't look to the Bible for values of fundamental physical constants. I don't look for information on the history of Central Asia in an Italian cookbook. I don't see why I should look for moral instruction or epistemological insight in a theory of the origin of species.
Welcome to the crevo fray, Chancellor.
This kind of attack is worthy of a leftist (remember poor Paula Jones and "trailer trash"?); it's unworthy of a Freeper. Shame on you.
That's a historical accident, dating from when science was known as natural philosophy. It's an anachronism. As science has progressed, and philosophy has vortexed down into its own navel, the idea that philosophy somehow includes science is ever more untenable.
One might as well argue that doctors are really teachers.
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.