Darwin's greatest challenge tackled

European Molecular Biology Laboratory ^ | 10/28/2004 | EMBL

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[DennisR]

"they come from an ancient population of light-sensitive cells that were initially located in the brain."

And where did these two "scientists" find this verifiable information?

[Texas Songwriter]

Convergent evolution of the eye is a religious concept. Out of nothing the vertebrate eye is supposed to have developed completely separate from the squid and octopus which they (Darwinians) say developed from different phylogenetic lineages. Just got lucky I guess. When they say "If you put a chimpanzee in from of an IBM selectric typewriter and he struck 60 elements per minute,given enough time he would exactly duplicate the exact works of Shakespeare." That is an article of faith any way you slice it. Call it science if you like, but it aint.

[Texas Songwriter]

One cannot deal with origins apart from faith. Observers were not there (except the God of the Universe)

[Texas Songwriter]

Yes, a metaphysical origin ordered by a orderer to conform to the laws of physics.

[PatrickHenry]

Observers were not there

Ah. So that's why OJ wasn't convicted. No eye-witnesses.

[Texas Songwriter]

Mr Luton, Are you married? Do you love your wife? If so you must confess that if everything is the result of molecular and subatomic changes that occurred very slowly over time, then for you to say " I love my wife" is no more meaningful than to say a I have a gastrointestinal pain or an itch, because love is mediated at a molecular,neurochemical level just like an itch and is therefore meaningless. It leads you to nihilism and hopelessness. Please exlain to me where I am wrong.

[laredo44]

but do not believe that all was created from nothing

Because you can't explain how it was created. You don't even propose a method for explaining how. You merely throw up your hands and say He did it and that's all anyone need know. That's not particularly satisfying to some. At least evolutionists attempt to explain things.

[jpw01]

I know the Bible is accurate for many reasons. I have studied the arguments for and against the accuracy of the Bible and have reached the conclusion that it is accurate and infallible. Anyone who wishes to do so can do the same, and come to their own conclusions.

My interpretation of the Bible may not be as accurate as I would like for it to be, but I'm working on it (with God's help and guidance).

If I'm wrong, there's not much to worry about. If I'm right, there's even less to worry about and a lot to look forward to.

[balrog666]

Wah, I just know! I do!

[Nataku X]

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[Dimensio]

I know the Bible is accurate for many reasons. I have studied the arguments for and against the accuracy of the Bible and have reached the conclusion that it is accurate and infallible.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what, exactly, led to your conclusion rather than offering a vague "many reasons"?

My interpretation of the Bible may not be as accurate as I would like for it to be, but I'm working on it (with God's help and guidance).

And yet you speak as though you do have absolute knowledge.

If I'm wrong, there's not much to worry about. If I'm right, there's even less to worry about and a lot to look forward to.

Use of Pascal's Wager -- a false dichotomy fallacy -- only demonstrates a lack of critical thinking ability. What if the god who exists doesn't mind non-believers as much as he does followers of false gods, and you're the one with a false god?

[Dimensio]

Mr Luton, Are you married? Do you love your wife? If so you must confess that if everything is the result of molecular and subatomic changes that occurred very slowly over time, then for you to say " I love my wife" is no more meaningful than to say a I have a gastrointestinal pain or an itch, because love is mediated at a molecular,neurochemical level just like an itch and is therefore meaningless.

Logical fallacy. Argument from composition.

It leads you to nihilism and hopelessness.

Logical fallacy. Argument from the consequences. Even if that weren't a fallacy, the 'consequences' that you have derived are based upon a faulty premise, as I pointed out previously.

[whattajoke]

Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

Behe accepts evolution. Oh, and evolution does not address life's origins. i see you are new here, but now you've been told. I don't expect you to make the same mistake again.

[Dimensio]

Yeh, I got real tired of Kerry/Bush babble.

Partisan politics on either extreme tends to leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. I put freerepublic.com in my hosts file to redirect it to a null IP until after the election.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Typical bicoastal, knee-jerk jerk.

[whattajoke]

Convergent evolution of the eye is a religious concept.

So therefore it's not true? You anti-evolutionists kill me. You insult certain aspects of science by calling it what you base your beliefs on. You make no sense.

[jpw01]

Yes, I could, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. You have already made up your mind, and as long as you can live with it, I can as well.

I have never claimed to have absolute knowledge, but I know Someone who does. I would never claim that I had a totally accurate interpretation of anything, much less the Bible. Apparently, you feel that you do. As I said before, as long as you can live with that, I can too.

As far as my use of Pascal's wager, it expresses my feelings on the subject accurately, so I'm not particularly concerned about your impression of my critical thinking ability. I'm not especially impressed with the thinking ability of anyone who uses science to disprove God.

[Dimensio]

Yes, I could, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.

So you're copping out. I'm not surprised.

I have never claimed to have absolute knowledge, but I know Someone who does.

An assertion of absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge by proxy, but the assertion remains.

I would never claim that I had a totally accurate interpretation of anything, much less the Bible

You said that you "know" things based upon the Bible. That would imply a belief that your interpretation is accurate.

Apparently, you feel that you do.

I never claimed any such thing.

As far as my use of Pascal's wager, it expresses my feelings on the subject accurately,

So I was right, you don't care about critical thought. You just like pleasant sound-bites, even if they're totally illogical.

Do you ever wonder why some people don't find your arguments even remotely compelling?

so I'm not particularly concerned about your impression of my critical thinking ability.

This attitude only makes you look stubbornly ignorant, and proud of it.

I'm not especially impressed with the thinking ability of anyone who uses science to disprove God.

No one here is suggesting that science disproves any gods, much less the God that you claim exists. You are paranoid and seeing attempts to attack your deity where no such attempts are being made.