Posted on 06/21/2006 8:33:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
That would mean it has been around since at least 1802.
"Got my KJV right here. (thump)"
I'll see your KJV, and raise you a Cruden's.
1800 is not only correct but easier to remember.
Who would that be, exactly?
Come now, no vague statements. Either make specific charges against individuals (and support them), or stop spouting nonsense.
6000 years.
For every google hit citing 1800, there are a hundred saying 1802. There are multiple revisions and dates of publication. I suspect that the 1802 edition is the one that became widely distributed, and influenced people like Darwin.
Never saw the 1902 edition. Got the 1800 edition. Paley would be an evolutionist were he alive now.
And what do yo think the age of the earth is?
You have a copy printed in 1800? Or a reprint? Who published your copy?
"Who exactly decides what is and isn't a scientific theory?"
Scientists, not religious fanatics.
"Macroevolution should only be a hypothesis, not a theory"
Please describe, in conventional scientific terms, what the difference is. If you can, then you MIGHT be marginally qualified to state your opinion.
"The scientific method cannot be applied to it"
Wrong. The scientific method IS applied to it. Every day by scientists working in the field.
"(nor can it to Creationism)."
RIGHT! One out of four!
My beef isn't really with biologists. It isn't really even with scientists. It is with those who use evolution as a means to legitimize their belief that no God exists. They believe no God exists, because if He did, and they believed it, then the stuff that they do would make them feel guilty, and feeling guilty sucks. So they spread that around, and try to get everyone to believe what they believe, so there won't be anyone left who does believe in God who might eventually make them feel guilty.
If evolution were proven and not simply a theory, it would even make sense to me if the guiding hand of God was behind it all (if, for example, the mutations were not a result of random acts, but the work of intelligence). However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point.
One of the few sites on the internet that says 1800,
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.paley.html
has this link:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/paley.htm
which says 1802 (although there's a typo in the title).
Seriously doubtful. Since I'm one of those you "guarantee you that every evolutionist will at some point personally see the folly of evolution" pay up. You lose.
The one with the Wankel engine? (Better than the Fiat Lux which has a 2 cylinder 2-stroke and no headlights.)
So many gods, so few maidens....
"However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point."
It's the missing link between a bi-polar human, and a bipolar transistor.
Science and biology have nothing to say about the existence of God. They do, however, have something to say about physical history. If that is a problem, I suspect it will go the same way it went with Galileo.
I don't see many people arguing that the movement of the earth destroys religion.
But there is a clue here. It is not science that causes people to lose faith. It is the self-proclaimed religionists denying the findings of science that make religion look stupid. There is a difference between accepting every new conjecture and claim of science, and acception conclusions based on centuries of evidence and argument.
"So many gods, so few maidens....
"
Ah, but, you see...if you're an atheist, you get to keep the maidens for yourself. No need for the sacrifices. Keep that under your hat, though...we don't need more competition for the few maidens still left.
Referring to the size of DNA, maybe, but it minuscule size only serves to make it's gigantic informational content all the more fantastic.
It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.
Michael Denton
How in the world does a biotic language, or a convention, or code, or whatever you want to call it, that itself is entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule, originate from chemicals?
"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."
John Walton
DNA is not the kind of thing that is "almost nothing".
Cordially,
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.