Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
I think if you look at what I reponded to you won't be lost on my response.
Again evolution could care less what you believe.
You're right. It's evolutionist athiests who care what I believe and seek to disuade me of it and indoctrinate my kids to believe that my religion is a lie because they have a theory they can't prove and never will prove. It's an argument from silence and as the article points out, the evidence largely stands against it. The odds being what they are, you'd have more chance of hitting the lottery for 250,000,000 dollars 10^1billion times in a row than finding a single missing link - they don't exist and never have. You've better chances of meating an alien than for explaining evolution.
The whole basis of origins of the stuff that allows you to debate spontaneous creation of life leaves you with another problem - matter. The creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics. You can blabber on for an eternity and never explain it. Where did the nothing come from that allowed it to spontaneously erupt into a vast something and miraculously do what has never been recorded in nature - spontaneous arrangment of Chaos into order.
Evolution is a religion that requires more faith than believing in God. The problem isn't the belief system, it's God that evolutionists seem to have a problem with - whether pretending at Chrisitianity or just trying to find a way to tell others that they don't have to answer to a maker. Hiding behind theories and fraud won't make God go away. And hijacking science for such a nutcase purpose is just beyond belief and beneath contempt.
Evolution has been held as "true" for a hundred years now, even without the "evidence" which was observed just this past June. The desire to "prove" this theory leads to biases and the strong desire to fill in the gaps of their theory. I suspect what this grad student observed isn't what they think they've observed. They've seen a change, but it's still a fly. Creation doesn't discount the possibilities of differentiations on a theme.
You think that's the evidence for evolution? That's it? And like any other evidence I could show you, you'll wave it away and say "creationism could have done that too." So why do you bother even thinking about the evidence? Well, from your knowledge of what evidence exists, it's apparent that you haven't thought about it. And don't want to. That's okay. It puts your comments in perspective.
I will reiterate, studying evolution in schools neither postulates nor even addresses the existence or non-existence of God.
The odds being what they are, you'd have more chance of hitting the lottery for 250,000,000 dollars 10^1billion times
Nice compilation refuting this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
It's an argument from silence and as the article points out, the evidence largely stands against it. in a row than finding a single missing link - they don't exist and never have.
There are lots of links. Look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics. You can blabber on for an eternity and never explain it.
Not true. The net total energy of the universe is thought to be zero.
No, it just tells kids that what they read in the Bible is a lie. We know, here's our [theory] proof.
There are lots of links. Look here:
A bunch of links don't give you any more evidence than the null set you have now. An argument from silence doesn't become an argument from falsifiable evidence by producing some web links about theories.
Not true. The net total energy of the universe is thought to be zero.
Thought total energy in the universe is thought to be zero. Uhuh. Putting on my foil hat.
Thanks for the ping!
Whether the closely related fruit fly populations, designated Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae, represent one species or two is still debated by biologists
In other words, the proof isn't in yet. I'm sure the researchers at UA are "positive" this is what they think it is, considering the noteriety the school would get, grant money, maybe even consideration of a Nobel Prize. But, to repeat: whether this represents one species or two is still debated.
I thought it interesting that RadioAstronomer linked you to a site called "infidels.com" to bolster his argument. That pretty much says it all.
Again, your example proves nothing. It's complete speculation that the fruit fly example at UA proves anything. Your willingness to jump to the conclusion that this is "proof, in the lab, of evolution!" does prove this: belief in this stuff requires a huge shot of faith, or at the very least, wishful thinking.
ROFL, I didn't miss it; but, I wasn't about to comment. There is enough incredulity for one night to be had on the latest anti linux propaganda from the MS paid trolls on FR to waste any tinfoil on this guy. I need it all over there where I'm sure I'm about to hear that Richard Stallman is trying to lead a communist revolution in America by making Bill Gates go poor with linux and the free software movement. The scary thing isn't the fact that this propaganda is nonstop.
Some of these guys are so convinced by brain waves from Venus that MS is the best thing since peanut butter, that they bought into a book last month that offered a fraudulent history of Linux that accused Torvalds of lifting code directly from Unix more or less. It was so thoroughly debuncked and discredite within two days after the article on the book was published that they were selling inuendo about what he might have thought even by accident... you get the idea. God help the world if such nutcases ever got behind the truth and pushed it as hard as their nutcase propaganda.
but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species!Aside from the fact that *all* life shares some *really* common denominators, including elementary chemical compounds, internal cell processes, drive to reproduce, he's spot on the mark ...
</sarcasm>
The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible.Funny - at the most basic levels, there are more things that are in common than 'things' that are different.
I guess that's a matter of the way you do science and the way real scientists do 'science' ...
I could not agree more. Lee Strobel has written an excellent overview, "The Case for a Creator." It shows how science itself is steadily nailing the lid on atheism's coffin and--discovering, behind a universe of breathtaking design, a Designer who infuses it with equally magnificent purpose (quoted from the jacket cover).
Standing by...
FGS
According to Steven Stanley, another distinguished evolutionist, doubts raised by the fossil record were "suppressed" for years.The fact that life, all life, is able to be formed from several good handfulls of the same basic raw 'stuff'; as opposed to a quart of dog for one small four-footed fetching animal, three ounces of 'fish' for, well, a fish, or 1000 lbs of 'cow' for a Hereford seems to have escaped those who deny any possibility that life was a grand scheme from the bheginning in the mind of the creator -
- how he achieved this grand accomplishment should NOT be something to be feared.
You would expect otherwise? Looks like an intelligent design idea to me. Why reinvent the wheel every time you want to change the tread design?
FGS
I am well aware of what the name of the site is. The article happenes to be a nice compilation with links.
What says even more, is you never bothered to read the article I linked to. Thusly your argument is drossy.
Cite one scientific article that mentions that the Bible is a lie. If you interpret the data in such a way, that is your choice.
A bunch of links don't give you any more evidence than the null set you have now. An argument from silence doesn't become an argument from falsifiable evidence by producing some web links about theories.
I could give you a list of text books instead if you would like.
Thought total energy in the universe is thought to be zero. Uhuh. Putting on my foil hat.
If the universe is "flat", the net energy = 0. See:
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/AST101/why_dark.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/4.html#MtCParams
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.