Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Oh? I guess you better tell that to all the lawyers who are using DNA evidence in court cases. This particular information is considered so reliable for identification that decades old crimes are being solved. Is that useful?
And from a purely scientific point of view it doesn't matter because the laws of physical science do not apply. That's truly where science and religion become one. :-)
The scientific community has not been honest about evolution, since they precluded one of the possibilities before they searched for the data, so they are not reliable 'witnesses.'
You are free to believe what you have been told, but you should at least do so with a questioning (i.e. truly scientific) mind.
I think that's kind of a generality on both accounts. I've read these threads where evolutionists state that with certainity that evolution IS what happened.
The motivation of science and religion are different. Science deals with messy uncertainty, religion seeks the comfort of certainty
I'm not sure of your religious background, but I can tell you that when I answered God's calling I had to abandon all certainty I thought I had. One of the things I was certain about was evolution. Accepting God is taking a great step into the unknown and going by faith.
A mathemetician, who's name escapes me, has calculated that not enough time has elapsed since Earth's founding in order for there to be enough mutations to have taken place to result in a human. Considering the number of cells, 100 trillion, he may be right.
Thank you.
Please state the maximum complexity which can occur randomly and give your sources.
BTW, random variation is part of evolution, but so is natural selection. The joint operation of both is a convergence upon adaptation to current conditions. This joint operation of both is not random.
Good point!
This characterization fits geology more closely than biology. Thomas Burnet's SACRED THEORY OF THE EARTH gave a naturalistic, but pious, account of earth history drawing on the assumption of a cataclysm corresponding to the Noachic Flood. He was a contemporary of Newton, and his mixing of naturalism with scripture was condemned as atheistic, and his church career foundered. By the time of Lyell, in the mid 1800's, the diluvialists were making their final stand.
Bookmarked!
Good post. It is incredulous how closed-minded evo's are about any challenges to their dogma. There is a sort of PC atmosphere around evolution and global warming. Their tactics are to ridicule anyone who even questions how evolution could account for the complexities. They have circled the wagons and are scared critters defending their dogma like some new age religion.
Any new evidence that refutes your theory will be dismissed as "lame." and the product of some evil creationist conspiracy.
Why do you suppose it is that after more than 150 years, the theory of evolution is questioned by so many scientists........not all 'creationists?'
Why has your theory changed 'facts' repeatedly over the years if the 'facts' are valid in the first place?
Evolution was based on a materialistic philosophy that has been discounted, but the 'science' it is based upon keeps changing, as each theory is disproven.
You don't believe in the 'facts' of the Scopes trial any more than I do, yet you cling to the theory that its basis is valid.
Have you ever asked yourself why?
Diluvialists have not made a 'final stand.'
For millenia all cultures understood that the earth could not have begun without a higher intelligence.
It's only in the last 200 years that scientists got stupid and came up with a theory that defies all logic....
"Good post. It is incredulous how closed-minded evo's are about any challenges to their dogma. There is a sort of PC atmosphere around evolution and global warming. Their tactics are to ridicule anyone who even questions how evolution could account for the complexities. They have circled the wagons and are scared critters defending their dogma like some new age religion."
What bothers me most, is I see people who appear to be chemist, physicist etc., or at least are well versed in presenting points, make it sound like this is simply a issue between science and religion. They have swallowed the bait so fully they have not a clue as how the total picture behind evolution has come about, from a philsophical viewpoint as well as the many years of trying by some to make the theory become a reality within the scientfic communities. Meanwhile the minions in large numbers, who have no background nor have the abilities to wade through tons of books and articles on the issues, simply think the whole world of science supports some form of evolution. They watch TV shows such as Nova, Nature, NG, etc., believing evolution is an established fact. Then when you try to reason with those such as we read in this post, that try to make it sound like the public school systems have a perfect right to teach evolution, but not ID for instance, because it is a religious dogma and therefore not allowed to enter the public domain, they show their total ignorance to the real issues at hand, and signal to me they really do not have a scientifically based background in all those diciplines that go into supporting the theory of evolution. They cannot accept the idea there are thousands of scientist and educators, some deans of colleges etc., that believe the many forms of evolution presented as being factual are simply wrong, based on the evidence shown by carefull analysis within those particular branches of science. They seem to not be able to phantom the idea that Intellegient Design is based on current understandings of how life operates. They seldom if at all grasp the warnings by scientist who write articles, papers, etc., pro evolution, that the authors often make the point, that it is only a theory, and has an extremly low probability of correctness.
Hell, one only has to read a 1950's presented paper on Organic Evolution by George Wald from Berkley and see where he goes on and on with theories but then makes it clear that no known mechanisms based on how the chemistries could happen in reality. Put another way. Many of these peoples that push the theory, are in essence writing science fiction. Their minds allow them to write about things that in a lab prove it cannot happen, but they dream on, and they suck the masses into thinking they have proposed a solid piece of scientific evidence supporting the theory. Then the coup de grace, is when the minions start blabing about how so many things in science fiction came to be........it is quite sad at best. The blind leading the very very willing blind.
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.