Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Take a million random numbers of 20 digits.
No, I will not take a silly example that has nothing to do with the biology of species. First of all creation and destruction are opposites. You do not create anything by destroying (and it is this horrible thesis which was taken up by Communists and Nazis for their evil deeds). Second of all, it is a well established scientific fact that species need and benefit from a large gene pool. That is why when they try to save an endangered species, they try to get creatures from as far away as possible so that there will be a greater genetic diversity which they know is better for the survival of the species. In addition to which, 'mutts', 'wild' and 'mixed breeds' have it all over thorougbreds and inbreds which is what natural selection causes - a decrease in the gene pool of a species.
The one thing I really like about the "contract" or agreement or whatever is the prohibition on trying to get threads pulled.
Ah yes! >>> When Plate Tectonics Strikes!! <<
Silly time again for the evos. Point is that there are many environmental changes which are survivable- if creatures are adaptable. The ones mentioned by your friend balrog666 at post# 1072 are good examples:
Of course we have sunspot cycles, minor and major ice age cycles, meteor impacts, super-volcano eruptions, earthquakes, plate tectonics producing subduction and uplift, and, of course, weather pattern changes to supply all that environmental pressure.
And then there's all those evolving predator-prey relationships, bird/insect plant symbiotic relationships, foliage changes, the arising of grasslands and the spread of deciduous trees, and that's only the tip of an enormous iceberg of other environmental changes.
Species can adapt to some of those, but they certainly cannot mutate themselves to survive them. In addition to which, environmental changes like those above do not give a warning.
'shut your whiney piehole'
That is what evolution claims. Problem with that is that beneficial mutations which create new abilities and functions have never been found. Most mutations are also very harmful. Interestingly, in spite of numerous deadly mutations, I have never heard of a single good mutation arising out of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not one.
With this caveat - Darwinian evolution, which is just about all that is discussed in these threads is inherently atheistic. You could have a theory of evolution which was Christian IF (big if) it proposed that all species were designed to unfold in time by the Creator. However, Darwinian evolution, the only kind discussed on these threads violently denies any sort of intelligent design, it also denies that man was created in the image of God. So yes, Darwinian evolution cannot be reconciled with Christianity.
Sign me up!
I do think though that one section may be unfair to the evolutionists:
endeavor to cause source websites to correct their mistakes.
This can become a lifetime task for the evolutionists! The number of websites saying that the fraudulent embryos, the fraudulent moths are true is innumerable as well as the sites who claim that the Darwin Finches are separate species. Not to mention that the entire TalkOrigins website would have to be taken down and Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" would almost be left blank.
I am not into such book burning or book banning. I think such a book should be left as an example of how wrong evolution is.
You here to stay or will still you challenge management at every (needed) opportunity?
My hands were off the keyboard the whole time.
Eisenstein's movies, Vinogradov's math, Illych-Schvitich's linguistics
Jesus Christ is perfect, no one else is or was or can be.
But you don't accept a standard definition of species.
More seriously, you made a categorical statement that is clearly false. We could transmit all sorts of information by killing individuals. I'm not suggesting it as a moral precept.
First of all creation and destruction are opposites. You do not create anything by destroying (and it is this horrible thesis which was taken up by Communists and Nazis for their evil deeds).
Even that is false. You and I exist because of programmed cell death. When you were an unborn child, millions of your cells died so you could develop to full term. Life exists because of death. The carbon in our bodies has been part of the bodies of millions of other life forms before us. Trying to develop moral precepts from natural phenomena is fallacious. European coots, when they breed, have too many offspring, and kill the surplus ones. That's a biological fact; it doesn't require you to believe in evolution. It's horrible, and I defy you to derive a moral lesson from it.
Second of all, it is a well established scientific fact that species need and benefit from a large gene pool.
That's an unsettled question. They thought for a while cheetahs were suffering from inbreeding. Now it's not so clear. Humans have been genetically bottlenecked - though not as badly as if we'd been descended fom one male and one female 6000 years ago - and we're OK.
In addition to which, 'mutts', 'wild' and 'mixed breeds' have it all over thorougbreds and inbreds which is what natural selection causes - a decrease in the gene pool of a species.
Oddly enough, you're spouting mainstream biological dogma here in an area where a lot of biologists are questioning the dogma. One of the reasons speciation happens is because intermeditate forms are often less fit.
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.