Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

Posted on 04/15/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 721-727 next last
To: Lucky Dog
What I have done is pose questions concerning evolution originally attempting to determine if a statistical correlation exists relating mutation rate, natural selection pressures and the emergence of new species. Outside of one poster referring me to some mathematical work by R. A. Fischer, I have no luck in even getting a firm definition of terms, let alone, unambiguous, measurable quantities.

You are trying to mathematically model the real world.

Easy! All you need to do is accurately identify the variables, and their correct interrelationships. (The rest is left as an exercise for the student.)

ps. If you can't do this, perhaps it is more a reflection on you and your method than the real world itself. Your failures are certainly not evidence that the theory of evolution is incorrect.

641 posted on 04/17/2006 7:27:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
But YEC says that there is a built in limit to variation. Evolution says there isn't.

If evolution by definition entails no limits on what matter can or cannot do I reckon it is no more scientific than Joe Christian who comes along and says "God did it."

There is no way to define a *kind* scientifically, as it has no real world meaning.

The language of biology categorizes life in to kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The real world meaning of "kind" might be gathered from the biblical texts if you care to take a look. Hint: Trees and humans are not of the same kind.

I didn't say construed, I said is.

Fine. God is the Creator of all life. Therefore all life is of common descent.

Why would hominid evolution be in written records when writing is a recent human invention?

Why should I consider something as "scientific" if it has no human records to attest to the accuracy of its assertions?

But the evidence for [a 4.5 billion year old earth] is overwhelming.

BS. You're just a parrot. You don't even know for sure the earth rotates, let alone how old it is. Moreover, you haven't taken time to study time and compare it with quantum mechanics. The evidence in that regard points to an intersection between time and eternity which in turn, is reason to believe anything goes when it comes to history.

Why is your assertion any better?

Because it is based upon a source outside of myself, namely a text which has enjoyed wide acceptance for thousands of years and attests quite pointedly to God's involvement in creation, and preservation of this creation. All you have for a source is your own opinion and the opinion of those who happen to agree with you.

642 posted on 04/17/2006 7:29:58 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
However, for the second term, let me see if I understand what you are positing here: “Genetic drift” which is the appearance of purely random mutations operated upon by purely “arbitrary” selection mechanisms produces new species.

The answer is yes and no. Every species has to have individuals that are physically fit enough to survive. But if you look at parts of the world where the food supply is abundant, and predators few, guess what? You get birds with ten foot long tail feathers and such.

Sexual selection is an interesting phenomenon. It can't override factors that cause early death, but it can shape species as rapidly as human animal breeders. The underlying factors are sometimes a mystery, but when they are investigated in detail, it sometimes happens that the girls choosing their mates by plumage are actually picking healthier, stronger individuals.

643 posted on 04/17/2006 7:37:37 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"If evolution by definition entails no limits on what matter can or cannot do I reckon it is no more scientific than Joe Christian who comes along and says "God did it.""

I never even implied that evolution says there are "no limits on what matter can or cannot do". Nothing I posted can even hinted at such a thing. I said there is no limit on how much a population can diverge from the parent species. Stop inventing silly strawmen and putting words in my mouth I never said.

"The real world meaning of "kind" might be gathered from the biblical texts if you care to take a look. Hint: Trees and humans are not of the same kind."

*Kind* as applied to biological populations is a made up word with no scientific meaning. The Bible doesn't say what constitutes a kind, which is why no two creationists have the same definition of kind. It can mean anything.

Not so with species. The biological species concept automatically excludes populations that cannot interbreed.

" Fine. God is the Creator of all life. Therefore all life is of common descent."

If you're just going to reinvent the meanings of words it is useless even attempting to talk to you. You live in your own little fantasy world.
Since you don't accept common descent as understood by everybody else but you, you do not accept evolutionary theory.

" Why should I consider something as "scientific" if it has no human records to attest to the accuracy of its assertions?"

Because there are many, many more lines of evidence than written records? In fact, written records are almost NEVER used in science. Physical data is much more reliable. By your logic, forensic methods to solve a murder cannot be scientific unless the murderer left a confession note at the scene.

" BS. You're just a parrot."

Check that temper. :) And no, I am not just a parrot, unlike you I actually check what the data is.

" You don't even know for sure the earth rotates, let alone how old it is."

Sure I do. Perhaps YOU don't, but that's your problem.

"Moreover, you haven't taken time to study time and compare it with quantum mechanics. The evidence in that regard points to an intersection between time and eternity which in turn, is reason to believe anything goes when it comes to history."

Please explain, in detail, how quantum mechanics says this. Remember, if it is true, then your favorite book has to be subject to it as well.

"Because it is based upon a source outside of myself, namely a text which has enjoyed wide acceptance for thousands of years and attests quite pointedly to God's involvement in creation, and preservation of this creation."

You mean hearsay evidence?
The evidence I have is also outside myself, and is from multiple lines of evidence and has been tested and verified by the most precise physical examinations.

" All you have for a source is your own opinion and the opinion of those who happen to agree with you."

And tons of physical evidence. You have hearsay.

Again, I repeat, you are not a theistic evolutionist, as you reject the most basic claims of evolution.
644 posted on 04/17/2006 7:46:13 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

He could be a pre-Darwinian theistic evolutionist. Darwin credited twenty or more writers on the subject. There was something called the great chain of being. Multiple, sequential creations. Many to pick from.


645 posted on 04/17/2006 7:59:29 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Why should I consider something as "scientific" if it has no human records to attest to the accuracy of its assertions?

There are written records attesting to a global flood. Does this make this claim "scientific?"

646 posted on 04/17/2006 7:59:43 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"He could be a pre-Darwinian theistic evolutionist."

But he isn't. Also, the multiple, sequential creations of the pre-Darwinians isn't really evolution. It's still essentialist in nature. Species (or kinds) are still considered fixed.

I'm done with this one anyway. How do you argue with someone who says,

""Moreover, you haven't taken time to study time and compare it with quantum mechanics. The evidence in that regard points to an intersection between time and eternity which in turn, is reason to believe anything goes when it comes to history."

?

If anything goes, than the debate is over. Every claim is as good as any other.

Night!
647 posted on 04/17/2006 8:06:11 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
. . . there is no limit on how much a population can diverge from the parent species.

Which essentially means a molecule may poof into a human, given however many billions of years we care to cobble up as needed. Or not. No limit means no limit, and life is made of matter, matter of fact.

The biological species concept automatically excludes populations that cannot interbreed.

I trust that means you accept the biblical concept that humans do not share common ancestry with trees. Or maybe you do. That's okay. The best guitar necks are made from trees.

By your logic, forensic methods to solve a murder cannot be scientific unless the murderer left a confession note at the scene.

By your logic intelligent design cannot be scientific unless God leaves His signature on every molecule. What's your point? The level of certitude for evolutionism as it posits a 4.5 billion year old earth and a gradual increase in biological complexity from molecule to man is hardly akin to the science of forensic crime, and even that science leaves much to be desired in terms of accuracy.

Because there are many, many more lines of evidence than written records?

And for some reason those lines of evidence always seem to be intelligible. How is that, if not by design? Please answer on the basis of science as opposed to your opinions.

You mean hearsay evidence?

No. The texts were not written on the basis of hearsay, but on the basis of direct observation. That's more than I can say for your faith in ***poof*** molecules ***poof** somehow causing themselves to be arranged into ***poof*** scientists.

The evidence I have is also outside myself, and is from multiple lines of evidence and has been tested and verified by the most precise physical examinations.

It is not the evidence we are talking about, but the source for interpreting the evidence. You are correct in asserting physical reality resides largely outside of yourself. But the guide for interpreting that physical reality is only yourself, and those with whom you agree, who themselves have no anchor except their own opinions. The biblical text contains information from a single source.

648 posted on 04/17/2006 8:07:30 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I've set a daily limit of Fester posts.


649 posted on 04/17/2006 8:07:36 PM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
There are written records attesting to a global flood. Does this make this claim "scientific?"

Only if the account gives enough detail to fill several volumes, occupy a university library, and contain sufficient Latin terminology.

650 posted on 04/17/2006 8:12:36 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
What does quantum mechanics and the study of time say about the age of the Earth?

4,500,000,000 or so years.

651 posted on 04/17/2006 8:24:09 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
There are written records attesting to a global flood. Does this make this claim "scientific?"

Only if the account gives enough detail to fill several volumes, occupy a university library, and contain sufficient Latin terminology.

Glad you still have your sense of humor.

But its late, and I haven't shaved. I will have to call it quits for the night.

Night all!

652 posted on 04/17/2006 8:24:34 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Are all oak trees of the same kind? Oaks in the US? Oaks in Texas?


653 posted on 04/17/2006 8:33:59 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
BS. You're just a parrot.

Fester, Fester, Fester. You are so funny.

654 posted on 04/17/2006 10:48:10 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

From my understanding of the dna code and all that it is responsible for in our bodies; the complexity is incredible. I mean a computer code doesn't have to put in motion cells that are like little mini factories that do the billions of functions to keep us alive. You have to admit that someone had to design that. I'm not being argumentative, it's just that it's only logical.


655 posted on 04/17/2006 10:49:14 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Fester Chugabrew
I've set a daily limit of Fester posts.

Yes, it's like watching too many episodes of Gilligan's Island in one day: one is funny, two is vaguely amusing, more than that and you feel like the stupidity is rubbing off on you...

656 posted on 04/17/2006 10:51:42 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: fabian

Your post isn't logical, it's a demonstration of the argument from personal incredulity.


657 posted on 04/18/2006 3:22:34 AM PDT by ahayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Fester Chugabrew

Your attempt to redefine words is not convincing anybody.

Apparently Fester has written his own dictionary. He should provide his definitions up front. That way the discussion, such as it is, can swiftly move on to what the definition of the terms is, which is where it usually ends up with Fester. All of time wasted verbally circling into that point can be saved.

658 posted on 04/18/2006 3:23:01 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: fabian
You have to admit that someone had to design that. I'm not being argumentative, it's just that it's only logical.

I do not "have to admit that." Who is this "someone?" Did "someone" leave the blueprints somewhere? Does "someone" own up to the mistakes he/she made when designing such things?

Because you don't understand it doesn't mean a higher power designed it. That is not logical at all.
659 posted on 04/18/2006 3:26:09 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
. . . written his own dictionary.

Coming from one who would rewrite history to refute the words, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I take your words with a grain of salt.

660 posted on 04/18/2006 3:58:24 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 721-727 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson