Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: shubi

I have something to add to this thread.

Where in the pathways of logic is it rational to assume that EVEN IF one were to disprove evolution that this would validate the story of Creation as told in the Bible or any other mythology?

Hell, next time there's a carbon dating error, maybe I should shout about how we found Enkidu's bones or some such nonsense.

Really, all the creationists do is attack but they have no real alternative theory that isn't strictly based in their religion.

How would species come about other than God just making them pop out of the ether(or being instantly converted from another animal?) Is there a non-God based version of how speciation occurs? Seriously.

I don't think they would ever HAVE a theory of their own(esp by the scientific definition) because, if you think on it, what other choice is there? Spontaneous generation? God willing it? ALiens like Q from Star Trek having made us? What?


420 posted on 02/17/2005 7:15:07 AM PST by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies ]


To: Skywalk

If there was a better explanation for evolution, science would embrace it.

Of course the misinterpretation of the Bible is not an acceptable alternative to science. You are quite correct.


421 posted on 02/17/2005 7:23:48 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

To: Skywalk
"Really, all the creationists do is attack but they have no real alternative theory that isn't strictly based in their religion. How would species come about other than God just making them pop out of the ether(or being instantly converted from another animal?) Is there a non-God based version of how speciation occurs? Seriously." -Skywalk

First, I hope I understand your question corectly and second I don't want to get in a heated argument. I have a theory of how species came. God created two dogs. They had all the genes in them. Their children lost some genes and became more and more specific. Once lost the genes were gone. So a terrier won't have a German Shepard.

A beetle may lose its wings. That is speciation and micro-evolution. He can NEVER get his wings back. He is losing info. not gaining. In my mind, Macro-evolution is not plausible at all as a FACT.

BTW- IMHO Darwin did not understand the complexity of life. He saw speciation. He supposed it as macro-evolution. It could have been a plausible THEORY till more knowledge. He did not know about cells, atoms, etc.

P.S.- I was thinking he proposed the theory humbly and said "if the data supports it". I'm not sure but thought I remembered that.

422 posted on 02/18/2005 7:26:53 PM PST by onja ("The government of England was a limited mockery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

To: Skywalk

BTW- Who or what is Enkindu? If I should already know this, please pardon my ever abounding and never ending ignorance.


423 posted on 02/18/2005 7:36:54 PM PST by onja ("The government of England was a limited mockery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson