Posted on 08/26/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
But unlike Behe, Behe, Behe; Copernicus, Copernicus, Copernicus could back his claims with actual science. He came up with a theory that included many testable hypotheses, something that (despite thread after thread) ID proponents have been totally unable to provide.
You really do have a sense of pride about it, don't you?
To me it doesn't seem right.
Except that the list of creationsts and ID advocates is shrinking. Denton has gone over to the dark side. He believes in "fine tuning" at creation, but accepts the history of life pretty much as biologists and paleontologists see it.
There are quite a few ID advocates who believe in some form of fine tuning. Even Behe, to some extent. It's pretty hard for anyone familiar with the evidence to deny the physical history of biology, regardless of how you interpret its origin and meaning.
thanks for the warning...i'm not a virgin to these debates.
"venom"...you got to be kidding.
are you so sensitive?
oh ok, thanks for your concern.
"imaginary"...if you want to push him in the corner have at it...the path is wide.
"The rabid atheist/darwinists maintain life spontaneously created itself"
Are you rejecting the idea of spontaneous creation? Or spontaneous creation absent the hand of God? It seems to me Genesis itself implies all living things were brought whole or complete into being or created spontaneously because the text does not hint at any kind of evolutionary process. So...if as you say the odds of "finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power" then what are the odds of animals and plants popping whole into existence?
some people are so sensitive that they're posts arent responded too.
"look at me, look at me"
sheesh grow up a little.
I noticed a very liberal sprinkling of "mights' and "may haves", which means that your ROFL indicates a very low threshhold for finding something humorous. If you really read the arguments using Behe's ideas on irreducible complexity, you will find the stone arh that they try to use as pretty darn funny too - that argument is more like a sixth grade fantasy than a scientific essay. I guess that if they can't come up with a good argument against irriducible complexity with cells and life-forms, they have to try to fool, somebody with a totally irrelevant example.
However, the designer is too complex to have come about on its own and, therefore, must have been designed by a prior designer...and so on ad infinitum.
Unless one subscribes to an endless line of designers, complexity arose on its own somewhere along the line--something the IDers shout "can't happen".
That they twist so much to rationalize the "righteousness" of deception, seems as wrong to me as a perceived "sense of pride" seems to you.
"what are the odds of animals and plants popping whole into existence? "
to darwinists: 0%
to creationists: 100%
to IDers: God breathed life into the process.
C.Darwin, "probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first BREATHED."
R.Owen,a contemporary,on Darwin, "restricts the Divine power of breathing life into organic form to its minimum of direct operation."
Please elaborate? Isn't natural selection rather an illustration of life reproducing after its own kind?
Again, interesting.
I find it difficult to accept people work so hard at not believing what God says.
What religion or denomination are you?
Er...no. The "old fashioned" way, as you describe it..would be through a miracle, not man's idea of creation (i.e. Evoluuuuuuution).
Not exactly true...there are a few other brave scientists willing to risk the flames and arrows from fellow scientists who cannot accept valid criticisms to their evolutionary beliefs.
Just because the majority of academia believes evolution, does not prove the theory.
I'm a Presbyterian. See, to me, you're the one working hard at not believing what God TELLS US WITH THE EVIDENCE HE HAS LEFT FOR US, AND GIVEN US THE BRAINS TO SEE AND ANALYZE, in lieu of cleaving to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I guess he who has the longist list of links, wins the argument?
Kinda irrational to be shouting like that.
Ya know...I dont believe God is going to give us a test on what we believe about "origins" before we get into heaven...but I tell ya what, believing that Gods Word isnt His Word would certainly reduce your chances of making it.
Not at all, but someone who suggests that those of us who believe it's possible that God created everything through evolution is sharpening up their Christian God hate skills might just be....
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.