Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
The fact that evolution is less than a certainty is not an argument, it is an observation, a fact, a truth claim, a certainty. Evolutionists who refuse to admit as much have relegated themselves into the realm of non-reason. They sound like Bill Clinton trying to explain the meaning of "is."
I understand.
I agree with the first sentence and like 95+% of the rest of mankind, disagree with the second. I see evidence of the existence of God in history (in particular in the person of Jesus Christ), in nature, and in my personal experience. But that's a circular argument on your part anyway.
Consider this illustration: In the middle of a desert which everyone believes to have never been inhabited, a pair of archaeologists stumble across an ancient wall of worked stone. The first says, "This wall couldn't have been formed naturally, so someone must have built it."
The second shoots back, "But we all know that no one has ever lived out here, and therefore this can't really be a wall, but must be some natural formation."
"Natural formations don't have right angles," says the first. "Nor would one have minarets, windows, or writing on it as this wall does. It had to be designed--the odds of something like this coming about by random chance are mathematically impossible. The wall itself is proof that someone existed out here to build it."
"No it's not!" says the second. "We all know that nobody has ever been here before, and you can't prove that these supposed builders of yours exist; therefore, this 'wall' must be a bizarre accident of nature."
Who is right?
It is not necessary to have complete information on who created an artifact to know that it has been created by someone of intellegence. By the same token, it is not necessary to prove just who the Creator is to demonstrate that the theory that life is designed is superior to the theory that it is an accident.
Snicker. And they keep telling us we should get a little remedial science.
Actually, you seem to be misrepresenting mine.
It is some of the evolutionists here that are insisting that evolution has too been witnessed.
No one is saying that a cat has turned into a dog or should. No one but you, anyway.
I'm just correcting them.
In what way?
However, the instant you agree that macro-evolution cannot be replicated in the lab any more than Alexander's victories over the Persians, you lose the right to claim that Darwinian evolution is as much a "fact" as gravity and to mock those who disagree with your interpretations of the data as flat-earthers.
Evolution of various fast-reproducing life forms is routinely demonstrated in vitro. The ordinary understanding is that when you know where little differences in a little time come from, you know whence big differences over longer time arise. The extraordinary claim is that some other mechanism aside from the accumulation of small changes is needed to account for large changes.
The burden of proof would thus seem to be on the ignorant luddites who claim that something else may be going on.
Still crazy after all these years?
Right. Whos to say "Genesis" is not a metaphor or a series of metaphors.. especially the Adam Eve story.. Seeing a metaphore as literal is like running to the window to see cats and dogs falling during a rain storm.. missing the whole copcept of its raining cats and dogs.
Various judeo-christian religions are good at that.. Since Jesus spoke mostly in parables(metaphors) what he was saying might have totally or partially been misunderstood too.
However current evolutionary theory stands completely against any God concept, unless "God" is "the force"... makeing God a fairy tale. When actually evolution is a fairy tale for ADULTS..
Here's a way you can prevent readers' eyes from glazing over when they read your posts:
Italicize the passages that you're quoting.
This is done with the <i> and </i> tags.
Another method of quoting, which I use for longer passages, is the <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags.Oh, BTW. You're wrong, wrong, wrong. :-)
*Cough*
You mean you didn't know the word theory had more than one definition?
Here's an article on the subject that I found on the fly. Enjoy, have a great day, and now I really am going to get back to work, as much as I love kicking around stuff like this on FR.
No, they are not. Micro evolution is kind into kind, dog into wolf, etc. Macro evolution is kind to different kind, like dog to elephant, etc. Micro is proven, macro is impossible.
You are one arrogant ..... To think you are in any position to criticize God's work. Can you "make" an eye that would see better? How do you know if our eyes are not perfect? Why are you so afraid of the truth?
For the lurkers more than for the impenetrables:
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.You can learn something reading the AiG site, but you have to be interested in psychiatry.
Nothing should be taught in "public" (government) schools. Government schools should be abolished.
1) Define species.
2) Why must a speciation event be observed in a lab as opposed to in the field?
Good arrticle, Lindykim. Thanks! BTTT!!!
LOL Well, no one is forcing you to read the thread. The choice is yours.
snip....we know without question that they exist, because their existence can be inferred from existing evidence, and from the fact that postulating their "existence" can be used to predict the outcome of experiments in different areas of science.
Another gigantic leap of faith! You're truly agile Warthog! This time you're literally straddling the chasm between two antithetical creation stories. You're doing so because you're unable to make sense of your 'evolution' theories based upon your "chance, accident, unintelligent, purposeless, & chaos" creation story, so you must "borrow" predictability and reliability, etc. from the Christian creation story.
Tell me Warthog, what do "unintelligent chemicals & other materials" wandering about in whatever existed prior to what exists now know about predictability???? And why would they care about creating such a thing???
Your responses need to be referenced in Your creation story.......Not mine.
You know the rules of creation science:
1. If it happens in the wild, it doesn't count unless it's reproduced in the lab.
2. If it happens in the lab, it's evidence of design, not evolution.
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.