Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I couldn't help it.
How true..I really have enjoyed that 'Brain on Creationism' feature...I have read it several times over...reading the actual quotes, and then linking them back to the thread where they originated has been invaluable for me...I have been able to go back and read threads I have not seen before...and I also take note of the screennames of the posters who have made such remarks, so that I know who is who...so your 'brain on Creationism' feature, is quite handy and quite informative...
Wrong book. The one I was asked to read was "The Bible Code Bombshell", by Edwin Sherman. This one doesn't try to make the kind of connections with historical events like WWII and so on.
Hardly.
"We always know there is a maker to say, an automobile. It just couldn't gather itself together and yet our bodies are alot more complex.
To come to this conclusion you need to make the assumption that the complexity of DNA can be calculated and reliably quantified and that only intelligences can produce complexity. So far neither assumption has been verified.
We know there is a maker for an auto because we recognize the auto as 'unnatural' in appearance and further know of only one way for an auto to be created. The recognition of the auto as an unnatural object is based on its features, not its complexity. We notice the virtually perfect symmetry, the lack of blemish, the tell tale polish, the very materials used in its form. No one ever goes up to an auto and says to himself:
'boy that looks complex, it must have been made by humans',
what he does say is:
' that looks liked formed painted metal on the outside with a nice thick clear-coat and hand rubbed polish. The inside looks like treated and colored leather surrounded by formed plastic. Gee, nothing in nature looks like that so it must be made by an intelligence. The only intelligence that I am familiar with is human and this really looks like something humans would do so it must be created by humans.
If you take a good look at DNA you will find that it does not have unnatural symmetry or near perfection but is instead full of errors, duplications, abandoned 'code', inefficiencies and unnecessary redundancies. Even the worst human code has some self documentation, DNA has none.
DNA is made up of nothing but chemicals, chemicals which combine unaided in nature all the time. The only difficulty with the natural production of DNA is the low likelihood of a specific DNA sequence combining spontaneously. However this spontaneous generation of a DNA sequence is not suggested by any scientist. What is suggested is the gradual buildup of chemicals, ultimately resulting in a short DNA that was subsequently built up in size by innumerable replication errors.
I couldn't find a review of this book. Oh well, I won't look for it; too busy looking for Salgan's tango tome.
Sounds like the lead in for a joke:
Whaddaya get if you mix botox, silicon, and AI?
(there's a punchline out there just waiting to happen..)
:>)
"Adding nickel is obviously NOT part of any purification process. Purifying Gold removes what is not gold - it does not include adding things to the gold, that is counter to the concept. IE, you don't seem to be paying attention, are misguided in your response or are being misleading.
As shown in the post by RadioAstronomer, elemental gold, that gold within which no other element is present, reflects light within the yellow portion of the spectrum. It is not clear.
For the last 8 years, Canada has used gold that is 99.999% pure in a $350.00 coin. It is yellow in colour.
White gold is not pure gold but gold with other elements added. Those added elements give it its white colour. Adding elements is the only way to make it white.
Guilty as charged, myself.
I find the psychology of the CRIDers fascinating.
Cites! Cites!
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Proverbs 15:1
In this case only those atheists residing in the US can be considered as belonging to a religion.
I don't live in the States but in Canada. I am an atheist, which in Canada is not a religion.
Perhaps the Grand Master will deign to lift a pinkie finger in your favor.
Not so.
Only the overly inclusive definition of evolution put forward by creationists which includes abiogenesis and the 'big bang' cosmology can be considered in any way 'atheistic'. Darwin said nothing about abiogenesis or the beginnings of the universe in his initial ToE offering. As far as I know, we are arguing the Theory of Evolution as put forward by the neo-darwinian synthesis on these threads. This is not about 'origins' or atheism.
It may be that many of us (pro-evos) do believe that abiogenesis took place and the universe is the result of an unaided 'big bang' but the discussion of those concepts is initiated by the anti-evolutionists not by the proponents of evolution. It may be true that many of us are indeed atheists but nowhere in the Synthesis will you find the origin of the universe or the origin of life mentioned.
Only if you consider a terrestrial old age to be atheistic can you consider the ToE to be atheistic. In that case you would also have to consider the geological and astronomical sciences to be atheistic as well.
And just what part of evolution's reality is inherently atheistic?
Are you a theist who also believes in evolution?
If so, can you describe that particular God? Thanks.
You just claimed all sciences to be atheistic. Is that what you meant to do?
You are conflating the lack of belief in a god with a lack of observation of the influence of a god. Atheists state that there is no God. Science says that God may or may not exist but in both cases does not influence investigation. If anything, science, including the study of evolution, can be said to be agnostic.
Nope nothing like that; Just the Christmas tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and Mel Gibson (wtf?)...
Bo Derrick with a bad dye job ...
Thank yew, thank yew. I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
It's hardly a fundamental law. It also only applies to fully formed complex organisms, not the gradual development of life from pre-life.
"We have already found fully-preserved soft organic tissue in the bones of dinosaurs, which are alleged to be "70 million years" old -- despite the fact that it is BIOCHEMICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE for soft organic tissues to last more than 100,000 years (let alone being still perfectly-preserved and elastic).
First - It was not fully preserved. Second - the preservation of tissue relies on the conditions it is found in. Degradation requires microorganisms and mineralization requires water. If neither are present the limits of preservation are unknown. The stratum the fossil was found in was dated to be older than 100,000 years. Third - evolution says nothing about how long an organism can survive. Sharks, turtles, nautaloids and some lobe-finned fish predate most dinosaurs, yet there are extant species.
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.