Posted on 11/23/2004 9:53:55 PM PST by nickcarraway
Queue the bagpipers?
202, another prime number!
Not now that you've snuck in another one.
And cue them while you're at it...
I pointed that out to him. I got no response.
Hm. What was the idea of gravity, before it became recognized as a law?
And is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really a law, by your definition?
No. Evolution does not predict these phenomena. Rather, evolutionists extend their theory to rationalize them in an etiology.
I don't quite understand. When you say "That would be because the theory of evolution doesn't apply when life doesn't exist.", are you saying that 1.no life existed before earth, OR 2.that evolution theory only applies to earth? Well, or both. Just trying to understand.
He's saying that evolution explains what happens when life reproduces. Thus, before any life exists, evolution doesn't apply, doesn't exist, doesn't happen.
It's kind of like weather not happening when there's not an atmosphere. Weather is the way that an atmosphere changes over time. Evolution is the way that living things change over time (i.e., across generations).
In slightly more technical terms the process of evolution happens any time the following three things are all present: 1) reproduction, 2) (inheritable) variation, 3) selection. Before life came about, #1 (reproduction) did not exist, and thus the process of evolution did not take place. Only after the first reproducing thing (it probably didn't rise to the level of "life" yet) came into existence, by whatever means, did evolutionary processes occur.
I've always thought that the most elegant resolution of the question was that those on each side of the issue were correct about themselves...in short, that those who believe that they are individually created, beloved children of a benign God hold that belief because they are exactly that. Likewise, those who believe themselves to be the distant relations of chimpanzees are also correct.
Here is an observation for you then: Unlike a scientific law, or practical theory, which we may depend upon for the development of technology (for testing, or for other utilities) the theory of an all encompassing evolutionary schema is not a... fact.
A governing rule in physics.
After reading his posts for several years, I'm of the opinion that your post would have been more fitting if you had left off the last word.
And there, in a nutshell, is the core basis of the creationist "objection" to evolution. I just wish would be more honest about it, instead of claiming to reject it on scientific grounds (especially since I have yet to see a "scientific rejection" that actually holds water when examined -- what the average creationist doesn't know about science or biology boggles the mind).
Well, that's what Hoyle proposed anyway. And thus it's amusing to see how often the creationists quote him as an "authority".
From Creationsafaris:
The only examples these evolutionists always trot out are a few extinct semi-aquatic candidates, like Pakicetus and Rodhocetus. The artist’ reconstruction of Rodhocetus in the article shows a squat long-snouted tan-colored animal with dog-like feet and a wide tail that flips left and right, unlike a whale’s vertically-moving fluke. Great. 15 mutations down, and only 49,985 to go. The caption says, “The early whale Rodhocetus probably paddled like an aquatic mole, using its tail as a rudder, rather than wiggling like an otter.” Notice two things: the word probably, which reminds us one cannot deduce lifestyles from fossils, and the observation that there are aquatic moles with similar lifestyles today. Are the moles evolving into mini-whales? How do we know the extinct animals were not perfectly content to stay what they were for eternity?
The paleontologists got all excited that Rodhocetus might have used its hind feet for swimming. What’s all the excitement about? Whales have no hind feet, nor do they swim with them. The gap between Rodhocetus, Pakicetus or any other candidate transitional form and true whales is huge, yet the article calls Pakicetus the “earliest known whale.” Given the gap to bone ratio, that is no more plausible than calling Icarus the earliest known bird.
In a way, it’s admirable that these paleontologists exhibit the power of positive thinking. Otherwise, playing Darwin detective must be a very depressing job. But the first step toward recovery for EA (Evolutionists Anonymous) is to admit that they have a problem.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1103.htm
==============
Keep sippin' that kool-aid, Vade. The good news is, EA meets every day here at FR, so you aren't alone. :)
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.