Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Stephen Jay Gould, I believe, but it has been too long for me to be sure of it. Since I go through about a half dozen scientific magazines a month, it is hard for me to recall for sure. First Things has had articles or columns that go into the evolution controversy in detail, and that could also be where I picked that up.
Although I'm a Christian who reads the Bible fairly literally, I don't see evolution, or the teaching of evolution, to be an affront to my religious beliefs.
You see, in my conversations with God over the course of twenty years, He has explained it all very clearly.
When creating this world, God created great wonders, as well as great mysteries. He put in the land clues to a past which He created--great beasts of the land, air and sea which never actually existed, at least not in the flesh. He made subtle differences in the design of various animals to give the sense that the world itself is a living thing, always changing, when in fact it is a very deliberate design.
He doesn't mind that scientists try to unravel these ancient mysteries. He marvels at our ingenuity.
What laws of physics were reversed? Oh wait. Let me guess. Even after half a dozen posts on this thread alone explaining why the contention is flat out wrong, even after it has been explained time and time again how local entropy in one part of a system can decrease at the expense of an increase in total entropy of the rest of the system, you will say, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics".
As for the "It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism"? How about I take a few phrases out:
every once in a while
By chance this sometimes happens to
And once in a blue moon such a sperm or egg is lucky
by luck of the draw
It all depends on a roll of the genetic dice.
Enough said. Takes a tremendous leap of faith to imagine that such a process ever happens.
Due to the hurdles, "fossil" retroviral DNA strings (known by the technical name of "endogenous retroviruses") don't end up ubiquitous in a species very often
The understatment of the century. And after all that he says it "probably happens"
Not quite the rock-solid evidence it is portrayed to be
I have. For once we will be talking about something other than football, and for once it looks like we will disagree.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree
/cliche
"And all of it by a roll of a mind shattering complex set of dice.
How are physical laws, chemical interactions and selection 'a roll of the dice'?
"There is nothing like telling the simple minds of the world that all of what we have an know cam from reversing the laws of physics and saying that from the simple has come the complex, because by yours and other evolutionists accounts...thats exactly what has happened.
Which laws of physics have been reversed? Be specific.
Festival of unenlightenment placemarker.
I think you missed the point. The fact that such situations are so rare SUPPORTS common descent - the odds of a retrovirus causing a DNA are very rare so it doesn't happen very often at all.
That is why the fact that humans and apes sharing common DNA fossils is such strong evidence.
"are very rare"
Mind-bogglingly rare. Assuming that it "probably" happenes" as the poster said.
"That is why the fact that humans and apes sharing common DNA fossils is such strong evidence."
That's where you lose me
I had a feeling that you would be the first. I have to give you credit there - seems like no once else wanted to be exposed to any evidence that Answers In Genesis doesn't have a ready make retort to.
Read my follow up to your post - I have feeling that we disagree less than you think.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Observation proves you correct.
Jeffy, you need to rread-up. The Bible talks all about retroviruses...
I have feeling that we disagree less than you think.
I've heard that one too many times.
God did that. And yet Satan gets branded with the tag of "The Deceiver". Go figure.
Ahh. I read those books a while ago. Do you know if the movies are any good?
No. Just that the total matter+energy=0.
Hitler's executioners were anything but "natural". They were attempting to be Intellegent Designers.
And yet another creationist, who doesn't understand, but thinks he does.
Nothing like jumping into a thread without reading the posts. Teachers teach the theory as theory and the fact as fact. The fact of evolution is the observation of the variation of allele frequency within a population through differential replication. The Theory of Evolution is the set of testable and falsifiable hypotheses that explain the fact of evolution and have been tested and not falsified. The theory make predictions, the fact is an observation.
Get with the program.
"Many FACTS in science are known and provable, and they lend credibility to arguments "suggesting" a path to exactness, but "evidence to suggest" is NOT evidence of fact.
Why are you changing the thrust of your argument from the concept of theory to the observations of science taken to be fact? The fact is not the theory in any science. Furthermore the evidence that backs up evolution comes from more disciplines than just biology, such as geology, geophysics, radiometrics, astronomy, chemistry, physics and probably a number I've missed.
Questions aren't being suppressed but we it would be nice if the creos asked intelligent questions instead of positing the ridiculous.
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.