Posted on 04/22/2004 8:46:34 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
I have dodged nothing, the answer is in my question. You missed it, Oh well.
BTW, I haven't been hostile at all. If you took it that way, perhaps you should look to your attitude, the one you displayed when you invited a flame war. Your words were, if memory serves, "flame away."
If you are looking for a flame war I suppose every discussion looks like one.
And then we also have THIS to contend with:
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
It was lost on the other poster. He also doesn't understand literary device. He sets up a strawman, one that says that in the Genesis account is the blow by blow eyewitness account by an uninterested scientist and that everyone takes it that way. Then he knocks down the strawman.
I remain bored with that approach.
Well put!
There's an interesting debate going-on at ISCID
There is only one problem with Darwinian evolution. It is the same problem that Lamarckian evolution has presented. Both Have failed endless critical experimental analyses. Accordingly, both must be rejected. Lamarckism has been largely rejected. Why Darwinism survives is a mystery. I hope I may be forgiven for introducing my own Semi-meiotic Hypothesis, but the simple undeniable fact is that it has not been subjected to experimental analysis. Until it is it must be considered viable. There is also evidence accumulating from molecular biology that fundamental gene families common to huge groups of organisms have existed since very early in evolutionary history, which certainly is compatible with the notion that chromosome restructuring alone can serve to release novel genetic expressions which were latent and unexpressed perhaps for many millions of years. Both the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the correlated Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis have yet to be even recognized, let alone tested. It may prove that there is really no significant role for micromutational (base pair) genetic alterations in determining evolutionary destiny. In any event, as I and others have indicated, there is no compelling evidence that evolution above the species level is even occurring. That certainly is the perspective of Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and of all people, the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", Julian Huxley, not to mention myself. Godfrey Hardy felt that mathematics existed independent of the human condition and needed only to be discovered. I accept that interpretation and have chosen to extend that prefomed concept to include the whole of science to include evolution which I now regard as essentially an emergent phenomenon prescribed just as certainly as were the conic sections, the periodic table of the elements and all of Newtonian physics and Einstein's relativity. Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there. That is the best evidence against the Darwin/Wallace hypothesis. They discovered nothing. They simply reacted to their common reading experience with the works of Malthus and Lyell. The laws of physics have been discovered. The laws that have driven evolution (past tense) will ultimately be discovered. When that finally occurs, and I firmly believe it will, both Lamarckism and Darwinism, like the Phlogiston of chemistry and the Ether of physics will become nothing but historical curiosities.
~Nosivad (John A. Davison, Ph.D.)
Dissension in the ranks!
|
|
|||
Gods |
Blast from the Past. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
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.