Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Six Days (A Biology PHD looks at Evolution)
In Six Days ^ | 02/17/05 | Timothy G. Standish, PHD biology

Posted on 02/17/2005 3:10:32 PM PST by DannyTN

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-294 next last
To: shubi

Which solves the problem of light before the sun.


261 posted on 02/18/2005 6:17:45 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; shubi
You cribbed them verbatim from this web page, along with the commentary

You're a liar, I didn't 'crib" anything.

I purposely left the footnotes and the quotes followed , by the writers name, Lee Spetner.

The quotes are what they are. Korthof didn't question them because he knows the quotes are accurate.

262 posted on 02/18/2005 6:20:01 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Not really. There must be the Sun for there to be night and day.


263 posted on 02/18/2005 6:30:28 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I couldn't find the exact page walsh copied from. Could you post the link?

I copied, pasted and attributed to Spetner. If you had asked I would have given you a link to the Spetner/Korthof debate. Probably best I didn't though, it's above your grade level.

I suspected this was probably bogus. I don't know any biologist who includes origin of life in teaching ToE. They might mention the abiogensis experiments, but not as a theory.

The only thing bogus here is a pretend Pastor who spends all his time on internet boards browbeating Christians. Don't you have a flock to attend to?

264 posted on 02/18/2005 6:31:52 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: nyg4168
For 6,000 years, until recently, most people did not regard the physical evidence as suggesting a universe billions of years old. Recently, scientists found ways to claim certain lines of evidence suggest an old earth, against the relatively uniform testimony of history and prior science. The scientific argument is going on in this thread.

But the objection you cite is really religious rather than scientific. I trust that you are asking as a seeker rather than a skeptic. Skeptics who ask that question believe they are wiser than God, that their model of what God should do is wiser or more truthful than what God appears to have done. But consider Genesis 1, which has been witnessed throughout history as a reliable description of what God did, and which has survived scientific inquiry so far (and will survive the latest round).

IOW God is not tricking anyone when he tells mankind from the start exactly what he did. However, at this date, he has certainly made clear that doubts should arise in the minds of many for his own purposes in history. He is not cruel to leave men free to idolize their doubts even to their own destruction. If we are instead pursuing him alone, he will reveal all we need.

If you seek God, he will show himself true and the false evidence false. Evolution was promulgated for the express purpose of denying God (Huxley, Shapley), and the billions of years are only necessary if evolution is believed. Nature will never ultimately conflict with the Bible's plain meaning; if it appears to, seek God and he will resolve the conflict.

265 posted on 02/18/2005 8:10:02 PM PST by Messianic Jews Net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

That's right. God is God, after all, eternal, onmiscient, onmipresent and omnipotent. Having created the entire universe, I have to wonder if He frames time according the rotation of a very mediocre sun rotating aroud a small planet in the middle of an obscure solar system on the fringe the galaxy. That God is the Creator and that Genesis describes creation I have no doubt, nor do I doubt that, in due time, all will be explained to me in a manner I can understand. Meanwhile, all wisdom is His.


266 posted on 02/18/2005 8:17:39 PM PST by ArmyTeach (Pray daily for our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Glenn Morton who wrote that talk origins article is not a geologist, but rather has a b.s. in physics. He has a history of making unsupported claims and misrepresenting the works of Creationists. See the two links below.

Response to Morton

Response to Morton 2

I won't respond to everything Morton wrote. But I will respond to the burrowings. If the stata deposited over eons as proposed by evolutionists, there would be much more burrowing than is seen. In fact burrowing creatures are so effective the strata might be hard to recognize. And I understand that there are more marine burrowing creatures than land burrowing creatures.

The scarcity of the burrowings is evidence that the strata was laid down quickly.

267 posted on 02/18/2005 9:21:59 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; betty boop; Michael_Michaelangelo
Thank you for your reply!

I fail to see any significance in this observation. Darwinian evolution does not require "pure" randomness in a "strict" mathematical sense. Nor does it require the complete absence of any "boundaries", nor equal mutation rates in all genes, or any of the other issues you raise. So what might your point be?

This is the point, Ichneumon.

Where there are boundaries, differences in mutability (and particularly, immutability) - as the continuum of life proceeds forward in time, the resulting speciation is not random at all. What the fossil evidence suggests happened is a quantization within a range of possibilities - but not all possibilities.

Natural selection culls after-the-fact, not before a mutation.

In sum, this speaks to a rise of complexity in biological systems which is yet to be explained in evolution theory. There is not even agreement on which type of complexity applies.

There are two types:

least description - Kolmogorov, self-organizing, physical complexity.

least time - functional complexity, irreducible complexity, metatransition (i.e. punctuated equilibrium).

The applet model sets initial conditions and applies rules as does the Schneider model, directed but without complexification. The Wolfram models are all cellular automata, complexity without direction.

None of these satisfy - not yet.

In terms of what it means: absent a plausible natural explanation for the rise of a directing algorithm (Kolmogorov) at inception (abiogenesis) which unfolds by self-organizing complexity (von Neumann) - the very things you mention - boundaries, differences in mutability - suggest Intelligent Design over unguided natural processes (evolution by happenstance).

I know you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Semiosis in biological systems is complex - it requires autonomy, encoding and decoding and of course, the message itself (DNA, RNA).

268 posted on 02/18/2005 9:33:02 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: shubi; Raycpa
There must be the Sun for there to be night and day.

No, there simply must be a directed light source. That's what scripture describes. God made light, divided the light from the darkness and on day 4 made the sun to direct light.

Your claim is like saying the power company must hook up electrical lines to a construction site, before construction can begin. When the problem is easily solved by a generator.

269 posted on 02/19/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

You didn't cite the link. You should have done that.


270 posted on 02/19/2005 4:41:19 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

"Probably best I didn't though, it's above your grade level.... The only thing bogus here is a pretend Pastor who spends all his time on internet boards browbeating Christians. Don't you have a flock to attend to?
"

Very nice. This is exactly why I think literalist creationism is so damaging to Christians. You have no idea the damage your side does to the Body of Christ.

I am the head of a homeless agency, but you knew that. You won't shut me up by insulting me.


271 posted on 02/19/2005 4:44:40 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Messianic Jews Net

"Evolution was promulgated for the express purpose of denying God "

Science cares nothing about God one way or the other.


272 posted on 02/19/2005 4:56:16 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Woodmorappe is a psuedonym. He is supposedly a scientist who writes creationist psuedo-science under a fake name to protect himself from the humiliation of writing nonsense.

I am not a geologist, so really can't address this as a professional. But it is the multi-disciplined interlocking evidence verifying the fact of evolution that convinces all but the most stubborn adherents to nonsense that evolution is true.

Until your side can show scientific peer reviewed data refuting evolution, you have nothing.


273 posted on 02/19/2005 5:02:16 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Your claim is like saying the power company must hook up electrical lines to a construction site, before construction can begin.

I made no such representation. I merely looked at John who described the beginning of the world and compared it to Noah's and see that John is making the statement that

4In him was life, and the life was the light of men, 5and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it
The two verses one in Gen and one in John seem to parallel each other. Which means the one in Gen wasn't about physical light, it was about a light that was the "light of men" that comes from the life in Jesus. I rather take John's interpretation before my own or yours.
274 posted on 02/19/2005 5:11:48 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Noah=Moses.


275 posted on 02/19/2005 5:13:18 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The basic fallacy of most of these anti-Evolution arguments is that either Darwin was right or the Bible is right. So if they can poke holes at evolution, they somehow believe this proves the Bible. Even Intelligent Design does not further the case that the universe was created by the God in the Bible.


276 posted on 02/19/2005 5:21:55 AM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shubi
You didn't cite the link. You should have done that.

I quoted Spetner and attributed it to him. That is all that is required of an honest poster.

277 posted on 02/19/2005 8:09:30 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Very nice. This is exactly why I think literalist creationism is so damaging to Christians. You have no idea the damage your side does to the Body of Christ.

You're bearing false witness again as you and WT are wont to say. I'm not a literalist and I don't damage the Body of Christ by disagreeing with you. I am the head of a homeless agency, but you knew that. You won't shut me up by insulting me.

You spend an inordinate amount of time on this board to be performing your job well Shubi but it's your job and your ministry. You can do as you please. As for insulting you, I will continue to deal with you as you deal with Christians who don't or can't understand the science as you do. With disdain. As soon as you treat them with repect, you will get the same in return.

278 posted on 02/19/2005 8:15:14 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: shubi

So we are back to same old evolutionist crap argument.

1)Don't publish anything that talks about design or creation because that's "supernatural" and not science.

2)And don't acknowledge any creation or ID arguments because they aren't published.

You are burying your head in the sand and taking comfort that there are many evolutionist ostrich people with their heads buried next to you.


279 posted on 02/19/2005 9:05:35 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I wasn't really responding to you. I was responding to Shubi's comment that a Sun was needed on day 1 for light.

I thought your physical vs spiritual light comment was interesting. But I believe God was talking about physical light on Day 1.


280 posted on 02/19/2005 9:07:24 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-294 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson