Posted on 12/13/2004 7:42:25 AM PST by Gritty
Anti-skeptic, anti-amorality, pro-Genesis ping
This kind of thread used to launch multiple-day, unbelievably harsh flame wars.
Must be the season of love and forgiveness...
> The fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario.
Sure, if your goal requires you to ignore irritating little things like facts and evidence.
Creation ping
I agree this book seems a bit biased, not to mention a pretty concise agenda hidden in it. Darwinian evolution has been refined over the years. Basically all this does is debunk Darwinian evolution, not evolution itself. There are other theories (punctuated equilibrium for example) that deal with some of the holes in Darwinian evolution. I really despise books and articles that intentionally try to con the uninformed. They aren't saying anything that is not true, however they leave a great deal out that contradicts their views. Hardly unbiased work.
> Hardly unbiased work.
One of the most telling bits for me was this gem:
"While Darwin's theory seems to explain how small-scale evolutionary changes or limited natural selection processes could operate within certain species, it fails miserably to describe, as Robert Koons observes, how such functional forms and processes "came to be there in the first place" and, as Edward Sisson notes, it "tells us nothing about when and how the genes we see today first came into existence." "
So, Darwinian evolutionary theory does not explain how genes came to be. Well, duh. It also doesn't explain continental drift or cosmogenesis. Darwinian evolutionary theory explains wha tthe repurcussions of gene *mutation* and variation have in a world of natural selection; that it doesn't explain how DNA came to be is not a black mark against it. That the author says it is is a black mark against *him.*
The Theory Of Relativity explains what sort of effects you can expect if you accelerate to near the speed of light... but it doesn't explain how you got that fast in the first place, or why the speed of light is what it is. Newton and Kepler explained the operation and effects of gravity and motion, but did not explain how mass creates gravity.
The just-so stories are no longer fooling the public because they become more and more fanciful.
> The central weakness or "fatal flaw" of Darwinism is its inability to explain the existence of both rational thought and the origins of the inherent complexity of life evident in the huge variety of organisms and their immensely intricate DNA code.
Uh-huh. And Newton and Kepler *entirely* fail to explain why Mercury's orbit precesses at it does. in effect, Mercury orbits the sun in violation of Newtonian physics. However... Einstein showed added complexities in the system that explain things. But Einstein did not prove Newton "fatally flawed."
> The adults are taking back what the children thought was theirs for a while.
Yes. Creationism is being daily shown to be more and more a childish fantasy.
> secular materialism is being toppled.
Yeah, yeah, any day now.... Creationists have been trottign that out for centuries.
Denial is unbecoming. Look around friend; that dog is hunting, he ain't troting anymore.
Hey, how's it going?
Couldn't disagree with you more, but how is the update of your webpage coming along?
From the looks of it, it still does. It is amazing how discussing this subject will unleash the worst in some people, as if they are personally threatened by it. Maybe they are?
> Denial is unbecoming.
Uh-huh. Take a look:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
Creationists have been predicting the death of evolution and naturalism Any Day Now since the early 19th century, and likely before. And yet... science progresses, more of the fossil record is found, archaeology continues to smoosh the "young Earth," and evolution continues to be the sole explainer of biodiviersity with even a shred of scientific validity. All Creationism has going for it is polling numbers, based on bamboozling a basically scientifically ignorant public. However, science and facts aren't poll-driven.
> they have thuys far only been able to successfully show micro-evolution.
Incorrect. The fossil record shows "macro evolution" (a BS term, used to try to convince the ignorant that there's really a difference) on a vast scale, just as surely as a film of a horse trottign shows motion, even though it only captures tiny instances in time.
Yes, because it is a chaotic and difficult-to-explain phenomenon that takes place very slowly, and is opposed by religious dogma that promises easy answers. Look how long plate tectonics took to be accepted, and that didn't even step on religious toes.
> It is amazing how discussing this subject will unleash the worst in some people, as if they are personally threatened by it. Maybe they are?
They are. Many people seem to believe that evolution and God are mutually exclusive, and that they won't attain Paradise if evolution turns out to be true.
> how is the update of your webpage coming along?
Go take a look. It's coming.
You know, you're beginning to sound like the blue staters, claiming that the red staters are a bunch of know-nothing, hayseeds, unable to comprehend beyond monosyllabic, grunt-like communications.
Do you believe that reasonable people can disagree?
We were all created. Many devolve.
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.