Skip to comments.
Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 05 April 2006
| Staff
Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
To: William Terrell
For basic elements to eventually end in the vast diversity of plant, animal and insect life today by random action, you have to, at some point, have life come from nonlife, or the theory collapses. The moment you presuppose life and start from there, to avoid an intelligent creator, you must explain how that life came into being. You try to avoid this corundum by stating that the theory doesn't need to address that. It absolutely does. I'm not impressed so far.
Learn the method of science. It presupposes no such thing, life can be observed as a fact unless you think you are dead. It does not even address a presupposition of creation. The theory addresses what it states not what you suppose it should state. There is no corundum of creation for science. If you can provide the observed material fact of creation, science will explain it and thank you for it. You will be the most famous man that ever lived.
721
posted on
04/06/2006 8:11:15 AM PDT
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: William Terrell
Occam's Razor demands that the simplest explanation be accepted. Occam's Razor is, in effect, a restatement of the principal of parsimony. It can be stated variously as -- one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything -- or -- one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
Since the reflection of these systems would imply an intelligent cause to a reasonable person observing the result, the simplest explanation is that it was created and guided.
Although creationists repeat on a regular basis that the "simplest explanation" is creation ex nihilo by a supernatural agent, and that this supposedly "simple explanation" is consistent with Occam's Razor, it is in fact a direct violation of Occam's Razor.
This "simple explanation" involves the introduction of an invisible, undefined, unexplained, and inexplicable entity -- thus adding (or superimposing) on that which is being explained an unnecessary entity or an additional assumption that is itself incapable of explanation.
722
posted on
04/06/2006 8:16:13 AM PDT
by
atlaw
To: dmz
But where's your proof? That's only a theory.You mean its only a opinion.
723
posted on
04/06/2006 8:18:28 AM PDT
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: Dimensio
So, law is the basis of truth?
Truth is an absolute, not a law... You can break a law, but you cannot break an absolute.
Truth is truth, for all things in all places in all time. Truth is the same absolute for everyone.
724
posted on
04/06/2006 8:18:44 AM PDT
by
Zavien Doombringer
(The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Your premise is false, and you know it.
Scientists are not the ones who cling to pet explanations against all contradictory evidence. All scientists have been taught that all science is provisional. If they stray from that dictum, they done screwn up. Most scientists will fight very hard against an upstart model in support of a comfortable model which has been shown to function well. However, those same scientists will accept such a new model once it has been shown under extensive trial to function better than the one they defended.
725
posted on
04/06/2006 8:19:43 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
To: atlaw
To a creationist, simple means the quickest way to end inquiry.
726
posted on
04/06/2006 8:21:47 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: Zavien Doombringer
So, law is the basis of truth?
I said nothing of truth. In science, a law is nothing more than a generalization of an observed pattern from which predictions of future observations can be made. It is possible that a law models "truth", but it is also possible that a "law" is inaccurate or incorrect.
Truth is an absolute, not a law... You can break a law, but you cannot break an absolute.
I said nothing of truth. I only addressed an incorrect equivocation between "laws" as rules of conduct imposed by a governing entity and "laws" as defined by scientists. It appears as though you are using the same false equivocation, as "breaking" a law applies to the former definition. The latter only allows for such laws to be falsified, or determined to be inaccurate.
Truth is truth, for all things in all places in all time. Truth is the same absolute for everyone.
I do not understand how this relates to my previous comments. What point are you attempting to make?
727
posted on
04/06/2006 8:22:23 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Zavien Doombringer
And the sun shines more brightly on those lucky individuals who have access to the absolute truth.
728
posted on
04/06/2006 8:23:47 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: grey_whiskers
yes, basically - though I'd go a little further and posit that the "indications" of the art must be taken seriously within the art by the inhabitants of the art.
729
posted on
04/06/2006 8:24:24 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
To: grey_whiskers; King Prout; betty boop; hosepipe; TXnMA
Thank you for the ping to your fascinating sidebar with King Prout!
It is my opinion that the point raised by Prout is the most accurate metaphysical division between the creationists and scientists: If God did make the universe, why did he lie? The answer presented by Prout is that God didn't lie, he made a work of art. And the mistake, according to this alternative point of view, is to have taken the indications in the art seriously.
I strongly agree with the metaphor of creation as a work of art made by God - which must be understood with the full appreciation not only of the physical but the Spiritual. But, of a truth, I see the young earth creationist's difficulty as a matter of doctrine - most especially, how these passages are discerned:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:1214 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. I Corinthians 15:4248
A number of confessions see Adam as the first ensouled man while others see Adam as the first mortal man. Of those who see him as the first mortal man, there are some who believe God created an old looking universe about 6,000 years ago (Gosse Omphalos hypothesis) and there are some who believe the physical evidence will comport with a 6,000 year age. But both are a statement of faith and facts cannot trump Truth.
For me there is no inconsistency with the time involved due to inflationary theory and relativity, i.e. 6 equivalent days at the inception space/time coordinates are equal to approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates. Also I have no problem with Adam, since I discern Genesis 1 and 2 speaking of the creation of both the spiritual and the physical worlds that Adam was banished to mortality in Genesis 4.
To: PatrickHenry
731
posted on
04/06/2006 8:33:09 AM PDT
by
George - the Other
(400,000 bodies in Saddam's Mass Graves, and counting ...)
To: Zavien Doombringer
Truth is truth, for all things in all places in all time. Truth is the same absolute for everyone. This is a relatively common overstatment. While I cannot, of course, put a precise percentage on it, I would guess that truth is non-absolute, or relative, in greater than 50% of circumstances. As a rudimentary example (from which you can extrapolate any number of additional examples), what is the "true" way to join two boards together at right angles?
732
posted on
04/06/2006 8:38:32 AM PDT
by
atlaw
To: Alamo-Girl
Another way of dealing with this quandry is to admit one doesn't know everything, and possibly to admit that one isn't even capable of knowing everything.
My beef is with those who distort or deny physical evidence in an attempt to prove something that they cannot possibly know.
733
posted on
04/06/2006 8:39:04 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: Gumlegs
No ~ you got it wrong. If you claim your argument has universal application, all I have to do is find a single exception and your argument is garbage.
That's simple logic.
Claim something less than universality and you're OK.
I certainly never claim universality on anything ~
734
posted on
04/06/2006 8:40:46 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
You were arguing that Christianity makes various claims about the Bible. Since the overwhelming majority of Christians do not make those claims, your argument was false.
Now, does Christianity argue that there are certain absolutes? Sure ~ but in the spiritual and moral sense.
735
posted on
04/06/2006 8:43:17 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: Dimensio
Demonstrating that humans can genetically modify or even create life does not provide evidence of an entity or entities doing the same thing 4.6 billion years ago. It might lend some credibility to the notion that life started from non-life and ended up with the vast diversity we have now.
736
posted on
04/06/2006 8:43:25 AM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: Quark2005
Not sure why that applies to cows ~ that's why Jews eschew the consumption of cheeseburgers.
737
posted on
04/06/2006 8:44:46 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: Dimensio
Does order come of chaos by itself? Prove it.
738
posted on
04/06/2006 8:44:51 AM PDT
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: William Terrell
It might lend some credibility to the notion that life started from non-life and ended up with the vast diversity we have now.
True, but life from non-life is not part of the theory of evolution, and -- as I have stated previously -- it would not constitute evidence of intelligent design as the origin of life on earth.
739
posted on
04/06/2006 8:46:19 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: William Terrell
Does order come of chaos by itself?
Without any qualifiers, yes.
Prove it.
Relatively chaotic collections of water molecules form into relatively ordered crystalline pattersn of snowflakes.
740
posted on
04/06/2006 8:47:34 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson