Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
And the mistake you are making is assuming you know what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. Lots of poeple that believe in God understand science. It's just the whacko creos that are lost.
"Think of it like this, evolution believe that if you have a deck of 52 cards and two jokers, and then shuffle the deck thoroughly, and throw the entire deck up in the air as high as you can, that eventually all of the cards will land, in perfect order, and perfectly aligned."
Hmmm. That probability is the same as the probablility for anyother.
"The probability of this even happening one time in a billion years approaches zero."
Ah, a typical sentence penned by one intent on misleading the ignorant. Pure garbage.
Demanding that "Evolution-The Origin of Species" explain the origin of the first species along with all the rest, seems pretty reasonable to me.
That most evolutionists like to get off on a rant about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, is nothing but a feeble diversion from the discussion. They believe that life originated by the chance combination of events, just like they believe that species evolve. But for some reason, it's like how liberals in general don't like to be labeled as liberals.
snip
Your article (post 400) is complete bunko.....
If I were you I would refrain from using it in the future since even the first sentence is in error.
I'm not sure this message was intended for me. I didn't post the article in #400. (although I did respond to it).
If it is intended for me, then I guess I'm confuseled.
True enough. But only that order of cards results in life(in this analogy), and all other possible orderings result in nothing useful at all.
Therefore, chance of life = extreeeeeemly small.
Chance of something else = virtually 100%
Okay, I'll bite. No person who buys into intelligent design dares to face what challenge?
What about the Cambrian explosion?
"Demanding that "Evolution-The Origin of Species" explain the origin of the first species along with all the rest, seems pretty reasonable to me."
I'm sure it would, to you. If you had read that book you would know better.
And the mistake you are making is assuming that I assume that I know what I'm taking about. When in fact I assume that I assume that you know what I'm talking about. And if you assume something different, then I assume that you assume that I assume something else. I think.
here is a list of more fossils that would totally not fit evolution:
-A dog fossil with rockets morphed into its legs.-A fossil shark with lasers attached
-A fossil crocodile with an outboard motor
-A lion with wings of a bird
-A centaur
-A werewolf
-A human fossil in the cambrian
-An elephant fossil in the cambrian
-Any mammal fossil in the cambrian
-or bird in the cambrian.
False. Unless you consider that trees and humans have the same genes ...
Ever been to Africa? Try selling sunscreen next time you're there
No. Definitely not.
Anyhow this is called changing the subject. I listed fossils that can't exist under evolution. Fossils that would represent past life. Nothing about future life.
-A dog fossil with rockets morphed into its legs.-A fossil shark with lasers attached -A fossil crocodile with an outboard motor -A lion with wings of a bird -A centaur -A werewolf -A human fossil in the cambrian -An elephant fossil in the cambrian -Any mammal fossil in the cambrian -or bird in the cambrian.
I'll throw in another: A whale with two heads.
None of these things would fit evolution. All of them would fit Intelligent Design. There isn't a single theoretical fossil that would not fit Intelligent Design. Both the most simplest, and the most ludicrously complex fossil would fit Intelligent Design equally.
People have answered your question and each time you disagree with the answer and complain noone is getting what you mean. I suggest you figure out a way of making your question clearer.
"I was joking of course, but . . . good answer."
I'm not sure which post you are referencing, but that would be consistent with my not getting the joke too :) I never said I wasn't slow, just that I get there eventually :)
Since a few hundred years has failed to explain or create even a "single specific" result of life, is there some good reason to asume there are more?
"False. Unless you consider that trees and humans have the same genes ..."
Oh, that's right. I forgot for a moment there. Evolution assumes that the impossible happened not just once, not just twice, but countless times. Good point :-)
As far as I know this does not fit any scientific, theological, or known model for the universe as we know it. It does, however, appeal to human imagination.
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.