Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Since the first man aknowledged his being, he came to wonder who made all this, what came before all the fathers and all the mothers. Isn't it a curiouse thing that the first question man has asked from the dawn of his self awareness is where did we all come from and why- and that that very same first question is still being asked today? We still don't know. And we can research and look all we want- we can even throw our hands up- but I don't think we'll ever know how this stuff works.
It even talks about a single cell developing from some gook. And that's what I was taught in school. That we came from nothing. The goo to you theory is what I have heard it called.Its called dumbing down the material for high schoolers to understand it. Molecular biology and quantum physics is a little over their head.
What has that got to do with this thread? If you're referring to opposites, then yes, Schools teach only political correctness right now. I also feel they should be at least balanced enough to teach Conservative values just as much. Right now, it's man worship all the way. Why not open doors to a wider range of thought? Either that, or allow school choice so parents can decide which they'd prefer their children to be taught.
Well, faith and fossil records and variations of species. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN GOD! It explains how A got to B- but not how A got there.
Why bother debating with the cleti? Collectively, these types of threads are leading to the demise of FR. Every day it seems like another long-time poster is bailing out. We literally had to cut a 'devil's deal' with these people to Bush elected; now we get to enjoy nonsense like these ID threads.
Isn't that kind of like saying that the usefulness of words and letters is entirely dependent on the words and letters being formed into coherent thoughts and put on paper?
Thank you. Great point about the medium being the message. YOU beat me to it.
Yes, This part
"Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added)".
This article is taking his quote out of context to suggest Crick (One of the greatest scientist of the 20th Century) believes in / supports ID
Here is the whole thing
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
Not at all what this article presents it to be.
Now how strong can your position be if in order to prop it up you have to LIE and take a dead man's quotes out of context?
Do Creationist / IDers have any shame?
Evolution is based on the scientific method. ID is based on a specific religious philosophy or belief.
Question? Is there anything that could shake your belief in the bible and its version of creation? If the answer is "No, nothing could shake my belief in the bible and creation," then you have answered the science/religion question in favor of religion.
That's fine. But don't now pretend you are doing science.
An Intelligent Designer has control over everything and He created the physical laws by which all things consist.
Your assbackwards statement is just another glistening gem of ignorance that typifies the evolutionary Darwinist's world view.
STOP CONFUSING Creationism with Intelligent Design!
I think the fundamental issue is not that it is incomplete but that it is fundamentally flawed in explaining the rise of complexity. Dr. Behe in Ithaca readily assented that some Darwinian mechanisms - like selection pressure - can be easily shown to exist, but they have very limited scope. The fundamental issue is that these cannot adequately explain the rise of irreducibly complex biochemical structures and processes - so complex that they won't work if one element is missing. But Darwinian approaches must insist that they developed incrementally, piece at a time. But since Darwinian processes have no foresight, it canot be "known" that there is an advantage to begin developing a complex system ("trust me, you'll need this protein synthesis gene sequence later!"). Each step (the genetic blueprint and the resulting biochemical product and process) must arise RANDOMLY, and at each step these structures/products must confer an adaptive advantage (or at least no disadvantage). Then, after countless generations, the last step/structure develops, the new biochemical machine can start up, and run, and confer an adaptive advantage? To quote Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "Inconceivable!" Yet this is exactly the foundation on which modern Darwinism stands. And the increasing unveiling of the complexity of the genome compounds the issue.
I remember sitting in college biochemistry listening to DNA replication mechanisms being explained. In high school we were told the DNA strands magically unfold, more DNA floats in, lines up, and voila, a perfect copy. Sorry - more complex. In real life a biological machine (an enzyme, a hunk of protein) slides along a chromosome, snipping the DNA strand in half. Another one works its way along the chromosome, piecing in new matching components according to the prescribed base-pairing. Finally, another enzyme works along the chromosome to CHECK the pairing. If it finds an error, it seeks to snip out the bad acid and bring in a correct one. But the really flooring fact is that this checking enzyme has steric structure ("handedness")- it can only read and fix in one direction. One one side of the chromosome it can work fine, but on the other, it has to back up two bases, then read ahead one, back up two, read ahead one. Remember, this all just happened. And it had to happen early on, as part of the genetic replication machinery essential to all life.
Yet, the theory of creationism is also "full of holes", that is to say that it fails to explain, in any way other than the circular, HUGE elements of the real world as we find it. It is not enough to say that "God just made it that way." That is not an adequate answer.
Indeed - it is intellectually lazy to rest there, I agree. But as regarding current Darwinist thought , Behe suggested pursuing inquiry solely along lines tainted with fatal logical flaws will ultimately go nowhere.
Yet, on threads like these, that argument is the one that is always resorted to. And always by people who have no trouble tossing the entire body of scientific research into the evolution of life on earth on the trash heap because some issue or another remains unexplained in full detail. It's basically dishonest.
See above comment. What is fundamentally dishonest is the position of the mainstream scientific establishment, assuring the general public that the overall pattern of evolution is proven, and there are just a few details to work out. I was at a university forum where a retired professor (not of biology) referred to the "proven facts" of evolution. A renowned and uniquely honest professor of evolutionary biology stood up to rip that guy's statement to shreds. He said, to paraphrase, "I was a graduate student during the great evolutionary synthesis of the 1960's, and nothing we thought true then is thought true any more ... We still don't have ONE good example of speciation!" [the divergence of a single species into two].
To see how thin the ice has often been, read "Of Moths and Men" (check Amazon or google it - I forget the author). Written by a non-creationist, it shows how contrived the famous "pepper moth" experiments (industrial melanism) were that you read about in high school (Hint: in real life the moths never land on sooty tree trunks but on leaves). No one has ever been able to replicate the claimed selection advantage, but they have become mythic in more ways than one. You will also read about what happens when even committed Darwinists stray too far off the plantation.
No. Its the other way around. Evolutionists have to make a reasonable case it is likely before teaching this stuff to children as fact. The fact no one is allowed to even question evolution without being ridiculed is preposterous. Political correctness has infested academia on this topic and global warming.
Only God knows, for only God could.
No. It's just a theory. All of it is a guess. None of the fossils of "early man" have any human DNA. They're still animals.
Not only that, but in one huge evolutionary jump, the entire back bone and skull change from that of a monkey to that of a bear. No one even discusses that part. It doesn't fit the "theory."
Actually, to suggest that information, DNA or otherwise, can be shared apart from intelligence and design is ludicrous.
Explain Phi.
And how did those Chemicals get there?
Please see my profile for futher indepth analysis of this.
DON'T CONFUSE CREATIONISM WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!
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.