Nobody said being a over-worked and under-paid atheist would be easy, Vade. 
Posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
No we don't. You can posit that if you like, but it's not proof, nor scientific method.
We need to know what that something is and how it works.
Let me know when you do. I'm all for looking into things.
I notice that here. The "bad pennies keep coming back" problem. Beat all the lies and fallacies to pulp on one thread and the same people or new ones are back with them somewhere else.
The actual history of life on Earth does not depend upon whether certain militantly ignorant people ever give up their attacks on it.
Of course. There is a world of difference between development and interspeciation. A better example is a virus, which will do more reproduction and genetic recombination is a decade than human beings could accomplish in a millenium. Yet it will remain a virus. It will change itself and adapt to its circumstances, but it will remain a virus.
I think one reason so many people are hell-bent on supporting "evolution" is that we haven't got a universal definition of what "evolution" actually is! Is it a horse getting taller, or antibiotic resistance, or is it a fish becoming a frog? For me, any decent theory about evolution must include something about interspeciation.
"The God of the Bible would not use senseless violence to breed human beings."
You are viewing this through human eyes. Many human eyes would Christ's death as senseless violence.
I also enjoy www.arn.org. Some brilliant people post there.
Proof that at least one of two (evolution, ice age) key theories is false , May 2004
cheap trick behind the most devasting lie in the history of mankind - how fools were mislead to believe in human evolution, October 15, 2003
One can change incrementally and greatly without changing fundamentally.
One could take the Creationist method and change the meaning of large. When speciation is demonstration, one could claim, "It's still the same genus."
1. You are correct and we are ignorant. or
2. You are correct but are not very good communicator. or
3. You are correct and we lie to ourselves. or
4. You are ignorant and we are correct. or
5. You are lieing to yourself and we are correct. or
6. You are being blinded by a supernatural desception and we are not.
Evolution is simply the change in the frequencies of alleles from one generation to the next. The term evolution does not necessarily mean becoming a new species.
Submitting this idea just for the sake of muddying up the water and instigating thought: Why couldn't a creator intelligently design an evolutionary process?
"I assume you know the difference between an animal developing a new characteristic and become an entirely new animal?"
Ok, but how many new characteristics before we call it a new animal?
Nobody said being a over-worked and under-paid atheist would be easy, Vade.
Whatever... Ignorant pinhead.
That depends on which species concept you accept. The fact that no species concept has been universally accepted makes your challenge difficult, if not impossible, to defend.
"Why couldn't a creator intelligently design an evolutionary process?"
My thoughts exactly. How amazing is the DNA molecule? Doesn't it make more sense that this molecule, with it's endless verity and ability to adapt to even the harshest of conditions, has been designed, not the cell, or the organism that is a result of it's adaptations.
Still no proof of that though, so it would only be a guess.
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.