Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
Worth repeating. Another cigar for you.
This is basically BS. Evolution is not a theory in the same way as other areas of science, because all others that I'm aware of are based on repeatable experiments with measurable results which can be used to confirm or deny the theory.
Or Cthulhu or (my favorite) a giant chicken named Harry from Pasdena. Have a cigar.
No, but why postulate one if you don't need him in your explanation?
And no, I'm not familiar with Last Thursdayism, but I'm sure you'll fill me in, and I feel certain I'll be offended. ; * )
Last Thursdayism says that the Universe, and everything in it, was created last Thursday, along with our (false) memories of everything that happened prior to that.
It's also not falsifiable, just like your creator.
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)
"Once there was a change in our family situation. Our pet dog passed away and we salved our grief by acquiring a new one-a blue cattle pup. He was intelligent and very mischievous. We had a lot of fun with him. while he was small, he would amuse us by trying to catch his own tail and bite it. He would spy the tip of his tail out of the corner of his eye, and, readying himself, lunge at it, as if hunting prey. But of course, the more he pounced, the more his tail moved out of his reach. The only way a dog can really have its tail is to allow it to be an attachment to its main body."
"The... tail comes along just fine---when it is not its owner's preoccupation."
"Jesus advises us that though there are many good and important things, only one can be most important-the kingdom of God and his righteousness. First things must come first. All of life, with its experiences, decisions and relationships, needs to be evaluated in light of the highest ideal."
"When God is given pride of place, the machinery of existence operates at its best."
Typically they come from other life forms. If you are referring to the ultimate origin of life, that is not relevant to evolution. You also presented a false dichotomy of "evolution" or "God created the universe and all life within". Those are not the only two possibilities.
A fistful a cigars to you too.
Sorry, but it's falsifiable by my reason and common sense. One cannot for a minute claim that that is as logical as the two choices for life: creation or accident. One of those choices will turn out to be true in the end.
Because if you're a bible believing Christian you know that he desires acknowledgment for his creation. That is not too much to ask considering he gave us life.
No homework needed; I think it's Dembski's own special contribution to the field.
Well, why does He need a boat at all then?
Secondly, if one believes there was not supreme intelligent force behind the creation of all matter, then one is left with the impossible task of trying to explain how something came from nothing.
Probably true, Big-Bang-Theory-wise. The first problem with your statement is "impossible" - we haven't established that. The second is presupposing "nothing". The third is assuming "intelligent".
No, it has nothing to do with age, but with relationships. The notion of common descent (and this isn't limited to Darwinism; other models of evolution such as Lamarckism would predict this also) is that all creatures develop from previous forms. Sometimes this means that a species will change over time (confusion over this prompts children to ask adorable questions such as, "if man evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys"), but it also means that a species, separated into two or more non-interbreeding populations, can develop into two or more different (but closely related) species. It NEVER happens that a species has two or more independent "parent" species; the branching is always in the "downstream" direction. Exactly this sort of interrelatedness is evident when you compare the genomes of the world's species.
Butcouldn't it have been created that way? According to the Bible, Adam was a man, not a baby, at creation.
As you say, but if the world's species were created by fiat, there would be no particular reason to expect that their genomes could be arranged in such a tree. Furthermore, there'd be no reason to expect to see that arrangement reflected in the fossil record...and yet, it is reflected.
A law is a law. If you're familiar with Christianity, you know that God is subject to His laws.
But evolution, by contrast, does have testable consequences, and it passes those tests brilliantly on two fronts: genetics and paleontology.
Furthermore, the fact that the phenomenon of evolution it isn't easily reproducible doesn't mean it can't be modelled (i.e., described by a theory). We can't reproduce a supernova or the big bang, either, but we have extremely quantitative models of both that can be tested through observation. In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough
Another great post. Have another cigar.
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.