Posted on 02/26/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by DannyTN
Censure?
No need to rely on just my "assurances" -- there are enormous amounts of evidence indicating that that's what happened.
Well that just clears up everything, now doesn't it? :^)
Not "everything", perhaps, but it certainly explains a great deal to those who are familiar with the research.
[Ichneumon:] Because there can. I've seen it happen. And the processes are well understood. "
[DannyTN:] You saw a higher life form evolve from a lower one? Please tell us exactly what you saw evolve?
No I haven't, but then that wasn't the topic I was responding to, was it? I was talking about seeing the development of information.
Please work on your reading comprehension, you frequently waste my time in this way.
You are like Al Franken and his book Lying liars and the liars who tell them. You constantly call Creationists liars and you're the biggest one.
You are strongly invited to support this slur, immediately, or retract it. If not, I will get the moderators involved to deal with your slander.
The 'thermal vents' thing doensn't have conculsive evidence behind it. It's very likely, but not totally proven (which is difficult for somthing that ancient). There are still some scientists who think that the first life might have been extra-terrestrial in origin, possibly developing on Mars when Mars still had water (since it would cool faster than Earth, being smaller.) They point to the fact that mats of single celled organisms appeared very early in the history of earth (though multi-cellular organism don't appear till later strata, arguing against the notion that things were created in a literal week.)
Either way, there are fossil records which change gradually over strata, tracts of DNA found in related organisms, etc. all of which would have been predicted by evolution before they were actually discovered.
Evolution is by far the most predictive theory (or set of theories at this point.) And at the end of the day, science is all about predictive value. And theory that isn't, is simply armchair philosophy. We can roughly what genes a plant might have based on the phyllum it belongs to.
Some people believe in Creationism, but this theory is close to useless in terms of predictive value. It can explain things after the fact, but that's not the same thing as predictive value, and thus not scientific.
If you want to see a case of evolution in action, read "The Evolution of Infections Diseases." by Paul Ewald.
It's a little redundant at times since he's trying to make a case for his beliefs rather than simply throwing out some conclusions, but if you have the patience to wade through it you might find it worthwhile for just that reason.
Of course, I'm assuming that you're actually looking for truth and not just trying to justify what you already believe in.
Is this the new Evo strategy if you don't like the article start something like you did in post 36 & 33 and then try to get the thread banned by running to the moderators?
grr... sorry for the typoes. Typing fast. Have to go. Later folks.
A true Christian would apologize for bearing false witness against him.
If I thought I had bore false witness against him I would. But he has repeatedly called me and others "liars" on this thread and others (see post 33 & 36). And that truly makes him like Al Franken.
Jesus didn't apologize when he called the pharisees hipocrits and vipers. I'm not going to apologize for calling him like Al Franken, especially when he called me like a liberal fan of Michael Moore first.
If he can dish it out, he better learn how to take it.
Is this a statement of faith? You, nor anybody else for that matter, can declare this to be true absent a very strong belief system. I say that knowing that even if true it wouldn't affect my beliefs one way or the other.
He didn't call you a liar. He asked you to retract your lie.
Jesus didn't tell lies.
I believe you called him a liar ...
You constantly call Creationists liars and you're the biggest one.
That's an understatement.
What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds?
Stanley Miller: "I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful."
Which necessarily means that this particular information already exists in the biocosm and can not, by definition, be considered new information.
Ya'll might be interested in this.
Note I didn't call him a liar for making such an idiotic statement.
I read it. I understood it. I posted a review on FR a few days after the article was available, last fall. The article is junk. The style alone (lots of undefined terms, many assertions with any backing) is enough to call it junk.
Sigh! Sigh *!
This post contains some source article links and excerpts: post 336 on the Plato thread
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.