Did Noah goof up and leave some animals off the Ark? The Lord didn't tell him to do that!
Posted on 09/30/2005 7:45:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
No one is trying to force you to believe the Bible or to find your own morals there. That is your free will.
I don't know that it does - it may not say how many designers there are. I really don't know if it does or not.
It was sarcasm, which isn't really lying. But some of you just don't seem to get sarcasm (or humor either).
Actually I do. I just don't take everything in the Bible as literally true. Reading and memorizing isn't the same thing as thinking. And reciting is not the same thing as believing.
I've carefully re-read the posts between us.
In #150 you say I "obviously don't know much" about the ACLU, or I'm dishonest.
In #193 you say: You are as nasty as ever. But most evos are. Doesn't matter. We see you all for what you are.
I fail to see how I was "nasty" in any previous posts, and your response in #193 was purely personal.
In #209 I call you "Stuck on Stupid". I thought it was pretty funny too. And true. You've been given innumerable amounts of evidence on many threads, yet you come back over and over and make the same stupid accusations like "its only a theory" and such.
Yeah. You're Stuck On Stupid, all right.
You can disagree with evolution if you'd like. But to stubbornly insist on the incorrect creationist definition for "theory" after all this time is just wrong.
In #220 you ridicule me for making the point that I hope some important lurkers notice some of these threads and see that there are a number of genuine conservative people out here who have the facts on evolution and science and we will call them out if they continue to promote their false ID hypothesis.
In #225 you say: As I've said before, look on these threads and see who starts the name-calling. Not those defending ID.
Well after calling me dishonest in #150 and nasty in #193, I can see perfectly well who "starts" the name calling. Just look in the mirror.
I'm done with you mlc. Wallow in ignorance all you want.
"I'm done with you mlc"
Thank you!
"It was sarcasm, which isn't really lying. But some of you just don't seem to get sarcasm (or humor either)."
In order for sarcasm to be funny, it needs to have some kind of basis in reality. Your statement didn't. I never even implied in any way that Hitler was a scientist, or was every thought of as one by anybody.
I do.
Middle of the page placemarker.
Did Noah goof up and leave some animals off the Ark? The Lord didn't tell him to do that!
Yep.
So the evolution of a common cat ancestor to include lions, tigers, panthers, ocelots, shorthair domestics, etc. is now adaptation, not evolution?
A rose by any other name is still the same.
Well, given the hyper-accelerated rate of evolution that was apparently occurring at the time, maybe Noah assumed that the cat "kinds" he left behind would evolve into aquatic super-cats on their own accord.
That isn't the case, though from your perspective I can understand the mistake.
When people don't believe as you, you call them an idiot.
Lots of very clever people disagree with me on numerous issues. I regard the ability to admit error as one of the most powerful and admirable human traits. Most people don't possess it, for example I have never once seen a creationist on these threads admit to an error. But when people make very, very stupid posts I call them an idiot. You still don't get the problem with your position on speciation and Noah do you?
Classy. But then after reading your posts, I'm not surprised. You fancy yourself brilliant, don't you? Well, putting down others who differ with you shows how truly intelligent you are I guess.
I don't fancy myself brilliant. There are many cleverer people in these threads than me. And as I say I don't put down people who I differ with, I put down people who flaunt their ignorance and determination not to learn in public.
"[Evolution is] a theory that says that life evolved due to random chance and not anything else.
Do you really think that is true?"
More accurately it says that it's random chance or genetic mutation that is then directed by natural selection.
"Something approaching randomness may produce a genetic adaptation in an individual (a cosmic ray hitting a gene), but whether or not that adaptation is beneficial in an environment and whether the individual will have a genetic advantage over those without the adaptation is not random."
It's not random at the low level where you consider if a specific adatpation was beneficial in a specific case. However the theory proposes that proper adaptations hapening at the proper times where they produce a greater tendency to survive is random.
You also have to question the origin of phenomenon we express as the laws of physics. Is the way the universe works by design, or is it mere random chance that gravity works?
If you have to focus in on a theory very closely for it to make sense, you need to question that theory much more carefully.
"Moreover, do you deny that random events shape the genetic heritage of an individual?"
I do not deny that events that appear random shape the genetic heritage of an individual. I cannot prove that they are random, but they do appear to be random.
However, you cannot argue from the particular to the general. Doing so is a logical fallacy. If observing that there appears to be the result of random acts, you cannot extrapolate from that the there is not a design that incorporates those random events along with some guidance as part of a larger plan. An example of such would be the intelligent design of the natural laws which direct natural selection.
You also cannot take an instance where there appears to be a consistent and logical plan being followed and say that plan doesn't happen to be one of many possiblitites and only random chance resulted in it's existence.
Neither randomness or intelligent design are exclusive, nor are they provable causes for an observed event.
"And if an individuals genetic heritage is determined by something other than random events and the application of physical and chemical laws to whatever adaptation the random events cause, can you tell us which parts of that heritage are caused by that something other?"
Nope. Welcome to the realm of theories. It's the realm of things we don't know, and it's much larger than the realm of things we do know.
This is why we must teach theories as theories in schools, and stop with indoctrination where we only teach one possible theory to explain something.
A strict religious school that refuses to teach evolution is failing to teach students to think critically and teach them how to learn. The same goes for a public school that refuses to teach ID.
"Not afraid of anything. Why should ID be taught?"
Because it gives balance to the theory of evolution which is only a theory. It is not proven fact and it should not be taught as the only reasonable theory, because once you start examining it closely you'll see it suffers from the same inability to be proved as ID does for basically the same reasons. It suffers from the same inability to be disproven.
"Should Marxism be taught in economics class?"
Yes it should. It was taught in the classes I took, and surprisingly enough I didn't become a Marxist because of it. I did however learn things by being expose to the theory and critically examining it.
"Should chemistry classes include an alternate interpretation discussing Aristotle's belief in four elements?"
It makes for a good history lesson, but once you're able to disprove theories, you don't need to teach them as theories anymore.
Neither ID or evolution have been disproven, nor are they likely to be disproven due to the nature of the theories. They are also unlikely to ever be proven.
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.