Posted on 12/13/2007 12:45:57 PM PST by SubGeniusX
The only thing the theory of flight and the theory of gravity have in common with the theory of evolution is that they all have the word theory in them.
They have another thing in common. All three are a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
There’s only app. 5% difference between human DNA and plant DNA so are you related to spinach.
None of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have stood the test of time and research. Every system he proposed as irreducible has living examples of simpler systems.
Not so, I can watch an airplane fly and I can drop a rock and see the results of gravity but I cannot make a rock come to life.
But the explanations for why the airplane flies or why the rock falls are scientific theories, just like the explanation on how we came to be. But if you rely on your eyes for everything then do you doubt the existence of an atom or the concept of something traveling faster than the speed of ight? Do you dismiss physics or asronomy since much of that is based on theory as well?
I dismiss nothing, including the theory of evolution, I just recognize it for what it is , a theory, not a fact. Any honest person will admit it is a rather flawed theory at that in that non of the major tenets of it have been proven, yet. I do believe though that you are dismissive of creationism even though you know if something inanimate gains life it is more than likely there was an intelligence involved; it is simply more feasible.
Why don't you quote Darwin directly? His works and letters are all on line and easy to search.
Why do you continuously quote only from fundamentalist websites? You know they are not doing science; rather, they are committed to doing apologetics.
If you are going to argue science, you need to start reading scientific sources.
You may consider it flawed because if conflicts with your theology.
I do believe though that you are dismissive of creationism even though you know if something inanimate gains life it is more than likely there was an intelligence involved; it is simply more feasible.
The only theory I know that postulates life from a rock, as you describe, is creationism. Genesis 2:7.
Maybe you should read “the Origin of the Species” You will discover that the theory you are so proud to put forth does just that.
The last site I gave you is not a creationist site. A better question is why don’t you look it up yourself. It’s pretty obvious you have not read Darwins book or you wouldn’t be trying to deny one of his main tenets.
I haven’t found the place in Darwin’s writings where he says that life came from a rock, or what he thinks it came from at all. That last site may not be a creationist site, but it’s just a “Critique of Darwin” by a former airline pilot. Why should we accept his assertion about what Darwin said if he doesn’t quote or reference the source either?
Bu I have found so much miss-characterization, and outright distortion coming out the propaganda site sourced in your link or talkorigns, to give it much credence other than as a place for atheists assure themselves that their crusade is science.
Trust, but verify! You can't rely on this site only because it pleases you...
Bu I have found so much miss-characterization, and outright distortion coming out the propaganda site sourced in your link or talkorigns, to give it much credence other than as a place for atheists assure themselves that their crusade is science.
Were the names distorted in your post? Or weren't they? So, up to now, the site your quotes come from are those with "miss-characterization, and outright distortion".
It is covered in Darwins writings. More than that it is simple logic. If there is no creator than there has to be spontaneous generation. No he doesn’t state specifically that a rock came to life but again before life existed rocks are about all there is. The biggest problem you and other evolutionist have is you don’t want to defend this simple fact of the theory, you would rather get past the hard part and argue the part that is logical put still unproven. Just as you wish to state evolution as a proven fact, which it is not. Science by consensus is not science. Perfectly legitimate scientist express doubt in the TOE and are denied tenure and otherwise persecuted professionally, not what I would called honest scientific debate. What it is is the same science practiced by the perpetrators of global warming one either subscribes to it or he faces the unprofessional dogma of these bullies masquerading as scientists.
I would, but I was hungry.
I didn’t say that a rock coming to life was part of the theory of evolution. You did.
I didn’t say you did nor did I that’s evolutionist conjecture.
Sorry misread your post. An inanimate object gaining life is known in evolution jargon as Spontaneous Generation and it is indeed part of the TOE.
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.