Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Variation. It's corn. It will be corn tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Do you know what Corn is?
Why should he have. You don't.
Evolution would not be nearly as controversial but for the rabid athiests, men such as Richard Dawkins (and even Carl Sagan, in his own time), who jumped out of science into religion and philosophy--claiming evolution disproved God. Of course since science and the scientific method are based on unprovable philosophical/religious assumptions in themselves (as they must be), nothing can be pure science anyway. I get tired of the scientific elites who tell us all how much more they know about an infinitely large and intricate subject (beginnings) than the rest of us. To disrespect religious solutions at all such as by using "speggetti monster" ridicule too, only proves that people that argue like that have an axe to grind, and are not making scientific arguments anyway.
It's very possible to believe in evolution AND intelligent design....as a matter of fact if you're an evolutionist and you don't, then logically you reveal yourself as an atheist, agnostic or at least a deist. Please make that clear...so we know what drum you are beating. When science and scientists stick to the scientific realm, then you can expect philosophers and theologians to stay out of science. But the self righteous bleating BS of evolutionary scientists over ID, (making even the mention of it in a philosophy class in school a federal case...) tells me their's is a religious cause too, just like that of the creationists--only they hide their atheism behind "science."
No, I'm not the one redefining it daily to make it more palletable. That would be your crowd. Speciation is one becoming something different. A dog, as it were, becoming a non-dog. So far, dogs are all still dogs and have not produced anything that can be in any fashion referred to as a non-dog. The exception might be that little mexican rat dog that never stops shaking.. nah, still a dog.
You guys are the ones constantly having to change theories, change definitions, change whatever - turn the earth upside down so that irrational banter sounds smart if viewed from just the right angle through a piece of red rock candy (thank you Josey Whales).
What makes it controversial isn't just the rabids. The rabids make the conversation distasteful. The theory would be just as convoluted and controversial otherwise. Thus it's failure to take hold and it's waning influence.
There is no conclusive evidence for evolution, is there ?
er - Josey Wales even. rofl. Loved that old indian.
Excuse me, but a guy with three arms, is that still a human being, or did he become inhuman because he grew a third arm.. troll. Just thought I'd clarify for those in the cheap seats.
It's ok, you can clear your throat and cover your face when answering.
Ah, you mean there is an overwhelming amount of things you could point to that can be attributed to anything under the stars but your spin is it's evolution. Still nothing concrete; but, a mountain of spin. Sorry, just providing the logic translation service for the hard of seeing.. Our side generally get's this, the translation is for yours.
My apologies, I thought that the post to which I had responded was from John Lenin, not you. Had I known it was someone who shamelessly lies and redefines terms to "prove" a point, including insisting that "species" means something other than what it has meant for over 100 years, I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time.
No, there is just a mountain of evidence. Evolution happens to be your pet favorite ideology. Thus to you it is the best
explanation in absence of any proof.
Fossils prove one thing - something died. There is no dna or family history to cross-examine to determine anything beyond that. You may not like that fact, but it is nonetheless a fact.
As for your nonsense about "ERV insertion points" I seem to remember discussions about "Junk DNA". As it turns out, there is nothing "Junk" about it - zip. And the only strong conclusion to be made is that from ignorance, your side slapped a label on from hypothesis and were slapped by reality when proven wrong. The norm in evo "science".
As for deciding without examining the claims, I think the whole point of these threads for years has been an examination of one claim after another that's been made and knocked down. You guys call this "science" as though we're all supposed to give you a pass when your claim doesn't pan out and let it roll off while you shift to the next evolution subtheory replacement in the arsenal.
To me, if you were pursuing science instead of your conclusion, we'd know a lot more and have to discard a lot less making you all look less moronic. But, hey, that's just me.
I think it's interesting how the article talks about an incredible little motor in our cells called the flagellum and yet don't see that some intelligence had to make it. When we see even the simplest devices outside our bodies we know that someone had to make them. The most complex robots that simulate humans can't come close to the complexity and effeciency of our bodies yet we would never say that they could ever evolve without a maker.
I didn't redefine species. Do you seriously want to argue that a dog isn't a dog? Are you going to argue that a mutation causing a man to grow a third arm makes the man a non man. Floor is yours, knock yourself out. But, this is precisely the kind of nonsense that people see through completely. It's offensive.
"The origin of new species by evolution (speciation) has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild."
I've never heard this. Is this true?
No, it isn't. Doesn't stop them claiming it though.
Yeah, DNA and data files share a comonality, they both are chocked full of information useful only when presented to a machine and program capable of reading and acting upon them.
Ope, wait a second, Civilization 7 just randomly and spontaniously appeared out of a mass of nothing on my computer.. I stand corrected.. not. LOL.
do you know what a species of, say, ant is, troll? the distant multi-mutation descendants of an ant will still be "ants" - but what species? or are you so trollish that you will insist that the Pennsylvania Carpenter Ant is the same species of ant as the Brazilian Fire-Ant?
nevermind, troll - you are too evidently satisfied with your chronic craniorectal impaction for any argument to ever reach your ears, let alone your mind.
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.