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 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 721-727 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Sure it is. Ever since Darwin said the origin of life was outside the scope of his theory. Sort of like ignoring the pink elehant in the middle of the room. Everyone knows it's there, but no one wants to talk about it. Why?
To: Fester Chugabrew
"Why should anyone consider your evaluation of Christianity to be sound in the first place when you do not accept the authority of biblical texts? You may be a master of scare tactics and the politicization of science, but you are no master of common sense."
And you are the master of the logical fallacy. None of us is the Grand Master though.
82
posted on
04/15/2006 12:55:21 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Fester Chugabrew
While ID may be in accord with the views of creationists, one need not be a creationist or biblical literalist to infer intelligent design from the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. If you say so.
83
posted on
04/15/2006 12:56:19 PM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Dog Gone
84
posted on
04/15/2006 12:56:23 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
To: connectthedots
"Sort of like ignoring the pink elehant in the middle of the room. Everyone knows it's there, but no one wants to talk about it. Why?"
It's a different area of science.
85
posted on
04/15/2006 12:57:01 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: SirLinksalot
I stand corrected, but my question still stands. SELECTION implies "select". Who selected ? Or What selected ? Selection does not imply an intelligent agent, but it does imply a nonrandom agency.
Every living individual differ from the mean of its species in countless ways. Some are faster, some smarter, some bigger, some stronger.
My parents brought some boxwood plants from Virginia to Florida more than fifty years ago. They were taken from a variety that grows to more than six feet tall in Virginia, but in Florida, they have never reached two feet. They are stunted. Meanwhile, a variety of the same species, more adapted to Florida, has grown to be huge in just ten years.
Neither variety is right or correct. There is no way for a plant to know in advance where its seeds or offspring will be transported, or how the climate will change. In any given environment, some individuals will produce more offspring than others. That is selection.
If individual populations are isolated long enough, they will accumulate enough changes that they will not interbreed with members of what was formerly the same species.
In some cases, this lack of interbreeding is behavioral rather than genetic. They simply don't mate, even though they could produce offspring if forced to mate.
86
posted on
04/15/2006 12:58:27 PM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: Coyoteman
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.What do we call a scientific doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof?
To: connectthedots
Sort of like ignoring the pink elehant in the middle of the room. Everyone knows it's there, but no one wants to talk about it. Why?Because there's no evidence one way or the other. My personal belief -- irrelevent as it may be -- is that the first life on earth was created by God. But that's belief, and there's a dearth of facts.
88
posted on
04/15/2006 12:59:53 PM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: Alter Kaker
89
posted on
04/15/2006 1:00:26 PM PDT
by
Tribune7
To: CarolinaGuitarman
ID'ers are such a bunch of whining Drama Queens and professional victims.
Let the name calling begin! I see you've shown up on yet another evo thread. So if you don't mind, what exactly are your scientific credentials? What degrees do you hold? Where did you graduate and when?
90
posted on
04/15/2006 1:00:45 PM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: Alter Kaker
For the millionth time, there's nothing atheistic about evolution, nor is there anything necessarily evolutionary about atheism. I believe in God, I am a religious man, and creationism is still bunkGot to agree with you AK. There is NO doubt our physical forms have a transitional or evolutionary link to other hominids. There is also NO doubt that we humans are alone on the earth as regards Free Will, self awareness - and for those who believe - immortal souls.
I don't know if Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, etc had free will. I guess so: they certainly banged a lot of interesting rocks together in Olduvai gorge. I'm not sure that Christianity is predicated either way - after all, it's quite possible that we will meet Aliens one day who are also being saved by Christ, or aliens who will need such saving (or aliens who are not fallen - imagine that!). It's these sort of questions that I wish Christians would show interest in, rather than this tired 19th Century controversy.
To: js1138
My parents brought some boxwood plants from Virginia to Florida more than fifty years ago. They were taken from a variety that grows to more than six feet tall in Virginia, but in Florida, they have never reached two feet. They are stunted. Meanwhile, a variety of the same species, more adapted to Florida, has grown to be huge in just ten years.
...and yet, they remain boxwood plants.
92
posted on
04/15/2006 1:02:32 PM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: SirLinksalot
"Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp."Totally unsupported assumption from the data cited.
93
posted on
04/15/2006 1:03:28 PM PDT
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: connectthedots
The problem of the origin of life is virtually ignored by almost every FR evolutionist. It is not a separate question. On a previous thread Dimensio wrote:
I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms. a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
From a post by Dimensio here.
Evolution can proceed, after life begins, no matter which of these five scenarios took place. Attempts to say the theory of evolution can't be accurate, because the specific method for the origin of life is unknown, are false.
94
posted on
04/15/2006 1:03:48 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Ever since Darwin said the origin of life was outside the scope of his theory. There are things evolution doesn't explain. ID, on the other hand, explains nothing. It merely invokes a magical designer who uses pixie dust to work his inexplicable wonders.
95
posted on
04/15/2006 1:04:10 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: freedumb2003; PatrickHenry; Dimensio; Alter Kaker; CarolinaGuitarman; jennyp
How many logical fallacies can you count?
Highest verified number wins a special prize!
To: ImaGraftedBranch
Perhaps you are religious. However, you are certainly lacking faith.You believe that you can judge my faith?
Only the Almighty can do that.
97
posted on
04/15/2006 1:06:48 PM PDT
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: muir_redwoods
Totally unsupported assumption from the data cited.If only you could be so strict in assessing the data you believe to be supportive of non-intelligent, non-design as capable of producing an intelligble universe populated by intelligent beings. You might actually be consistent. BTW, I agree with you that the author's conclusion is not specifically supported by the data.
To: Tribune7
Back again with your best and only shot -- a bit of pissant lawyering over terminology?
Does conflating Darwinian and chemical evolution make one or the other invalid? Does it change one's estimate of the age of the earth? Does it change one's evaluation of fossil evidence, DNA evidence, common descent?
99
posted on
04/15/2006 1:07:11 PM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: agere_contra
... it's quite possible that we will meet Aliens one day who are also being saved by Christ, or aliens who will need such saving (or aliens who are not fallen - imagine that!). It's these sort of questions that I wish Christians would show interest in,... One did, Giordano Bruno.
The Church had him burnd at the stake in 1600 for heresy.
100
posted on
04/15/2006 1:07:42 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson