Posted on 08/17/2006 11:04:51 AM PDT by publius1
You need a refund on your world history education. Stalin was a follower of Lysenko who persecuted people who believed in evolution, or even genetics.
Hitler, who believed in a master race, was...what?
I think he professed something called ... Christianity. "Gott Mit Uns" and all that.
Please tell us, which law of 'basic physics' does evolution supposedly violate? I'd warn you not to say the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, unless you wish to make a major fool of yourself.
Have you actually ever read a real science book on evolution, or do you just recite verbatim the content of creationist websites (all of which you would realize is wrong if you opened your mind up, accepted a bit of humility, and were willing to learn something...)
That is like saying "the only theoreical foundation that physics really provides is physics itself."
IOW, semantically null.
Long list of Scientists who believed in Creation Another long list of scientists who believed in Creation (Includes Gregor Mendel the father of Genetics)
a. Hundreds (which I will grant although I didn't count) of these (how many are in the Life Sciences?) versus MILLIONS of scientists gives you .001% in the most optimistic scenario. Not much support, really.
I wish that you could have told that to Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics. If we could discover genetics without knowledge of DNA, then it's simply implausible to think we wouldn't continue to ask the questions to investigate the cause of genetics and thus find DNA.
He wasn't alone by any means. "Understanding evolution is how viral and bacterial agents are identified and dispatched." Not really. Selection plays a role in antibiotic resistance, and mutations do to. But neither selection nor mutations by themselves are evolution. And neither selection nor mutations have been shown to create new species. The study of protein structures are offering cures. But thats not evolution either. I'm not aware of anything that evolution has offered to help dispatch a bacteria or virus.
Then you aren't paying attention. And I guess you are unaware of the New York mosquitos which have, indeed, created a new species (since they can't mate with the above-ground species).
You try like the dickens to knock down TToE, but:
You have no scientific alternative
You cannot butress CR/ID.
I suspect you just like to "argue" (although your attempted riposte's really don't rise to that level). But it is sad that you are helping to dumb down America.
I will pray for you. I will also ask God to take into consideration your emotion overriding the clear science before you.
I am sure you don't mean to create the damage that you are doing.
As long as you attribute enjoying your husband's death as reasonable, then Coulter's arguments could be so construed. She is an embarrassment to what used to be conservative causes. She makes many misstatements of evolutionary theory; these misstatements have been corrected long before she decided to misuse them again. There is no excuse for such actions (well, maybe Molly Ivins has an excuse.)
Half the team that invented the Hi-Fi Speakers?
ID and creation make absolutely zero specific, falisifiable, fulfilled predictions. Evolution does. Of course, not every prediction of every one of the thousands of hypotheses of which evolutionary theory is comprised have proven correct, so, as with any theory, it has been adjusted and improved as new data has come along. This is one of the virtues of science.
Here's a typical prediction of evolution (from the link):
"Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off."
Can you give one, just one, specific prediction made by ID or creationism? By specific, I mean as in pertaining to the discovery of a specific fossil, a specific gene, a specific type of animal or plant, a specific distribution of a particular biological population, etc.? ("Irreducible complexity must exist" is not a specific prediction, mind you.)
Nice hit.. Bulls eye and the bull is flowing..
Hitler was not religious, he USED religion to promote his cause.
lol...unutterable? It is interesting that you seem to recognize the difference and not want the similarity. Yet, the deference is my deference. I can do that, right? Even without your permission? Unlike the DI's, G-d knows exactly who we are, and the stumblin' bumblin' is just the honesty of life. We know that reality as children- then forget it by the convenience of youth- and hopefully seek it again, as men. All the best to ya...
Swahili is my birth tongue. Okay?
Ah. That explains your ability and my disability :)
= D
lol... thanks! Divers-ity 1st, right?
"A - Unfalsifiable; That God created everything is unfalsifiable and violates methodological naturalism. This is cannot be confirmed. "
I believe it will be confirmed by direct observation. I don't give a flip about "methodological naturalism" because by definition that's a refusal to consider any alternative other than evolution.
However I cannot propose a test right now. So for the moment this hypothesis remains unfalsifiable. Science has often put forth hypotheses that were initially untestable when first proposed. This is no different.
B) Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems - Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
B-Falsified; organisms do not appear fully formed in the fossil record.
Actually, they do. See the Cambrian Explosion. There are some microscopic multi-celled organisms that have been found that have been proposed as precursors, but that hardly qualifies, and I recently read a work very critical of those microscopic claims.
C) Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information - Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
C - Falsified; genetic code is not complete and contains massive amounts of noncoding DNA, endogenous retroviruses, and pseudogenes. Also, the genomes of organisms are related and several are ancestral.
Careful here. How is genetic code incomplete? Are you just disputing everything that was claimed? If it's not complete, then how does it work?
Also, keep in mind that we don't fully understand the genome yet. Coding DNA was defined as "protein coding". However a second code was revealed in DNA just in the past month. So don't assume all that DNA is useless, because we aren't there yet.
Scientists Say They’ve Found a Code Beyond Genetics in DNA
That the genomes of organisms are related can apply equally to common design as to common descent. Look at the massive amount of changes that have to occur between a monkey and man. And where are the fossilized remains of all these changes? Nowhere.
What's more the evidence is that mutations cause a degradation of the gene pool over time. I can point over 800 inheritable diseases, but I know of only 2 mutations that are even proposed as possibly beneficial, and one of those is the disease Sickle Cell Anemia and Trait, which is beneficial because the body constantly fights the deformed blood cells which gives it a small advantage when contracting malaria.
D) Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms - Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
D - Falsified; The existence of noncoding DNA, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses do not support creation. Also, there is no way to confirm the Creator's intentions nor is there any way to confirm a Creator. Also,
You find similar traits developing on different evolutionary trees, which does not support evolution. It's more to be expected from a common designer. You have a term for this, it's called convergent evolution. Just another area that real life didn't match evolutionary explanations and you adjusted your model.
Your response didn't really even match the prediction.
E) Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth - Global Flood & aftermath
E) Falsified; Geologic Columns show no evidence of a global flood and geologic layers point to millions of years of formation due to gradualism and intermittent rapid-change.
There is much evidence to the contrary. Polystate trees span millions of years of geologic change. Mount Saint Helens showed us just how fast multiple layers of strata and huge canyons could be created. And also provided a model for how polystrate trees occurred. The lack of erosion in the layers of the grand canyon argues that they were layed down rapidly. As well as the relative infrequency of burrowings.
F) The Ice Age - Post-Flood climate compensation
"F) Falsified; there is no evidence of a global flood and ice ages are due to a combination of the position of continental plates, changes in the Earth's orbit in Milankovich cycles, et cetra. "
There is substantial evidence if you don't close your mind to it. The dinosaur graveyards are evidence of huge water catastophes. Evolutionary scientists assume these were local events of outstanding magnitude, because they just can't imagine a global flood. There is a lot more evidence than this.
Are polar ice sheets only 4500 years old?
G) Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
G) Falsified; entropy is misstated and Creation violates the 2nd Law due to the inordinate amount of free energy that does not dissipate. Also, a Creator that is supernatural is unfalsifiable.
You haven't falsified this. I don't think Entropy is mistated, but I'll admit it's often misapplied. Entropy in the time frame we've measured, isn't a strong argument. There are some on-going arguments regarding entropy of the earth's magnetic field that may favor a young earth. But again, this is a valid prediction, that may eventually be confirmed or falsified.
There are also things like the spirals in galaxies don't match the expectations of an old age. Some of the evolutionist explanations of why the spirals are still distinct stretch credibility.
H) Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record - General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
H) Falsified; Geologic layers show formation over millions of years, not aligning itself with catastrophism.
Only according to one set of assumptions. There are many evidences of catastrophism as previously discussed.
I) Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes - Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
I) Falsified; Erratic ages result due to contamination and such factors are considered during dating, as per standard practice.
If there is that much contamination, then how do we know any of the dates are correct? Creationists have put forth evidence that contradicts radiometric dating such as radioisotope halos and scientific research is ongoing. See ICR.org's date projects for more info.
Yeah but our gene for vitamin C Synthesis was more like gerbils than the monkey's evolution claims we descended from. So vitamin C synthesis really doesn't support evolution in any way.
So, if Hitler misuses Christianity, that says nothing about Christianity. But if Hitler misused Darwin, that says bad things about Darwin. I think I have it now.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say most of the history of life on Earth was OVER before Hitler was born. How does that sound?
That is pure speculation to pound a round peg into a square hole. You must pine for the days when there was no internet to check your facts.
"Called "Tiktaalik" by scientists, the fish lived in shallow, swampy waters. Most remarkably, the creature, which was less than 3 feet long, had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs and limb-like fins seen in the earliest land mammals." The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size. The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathing air. This is pure make believe speculation. No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.
The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground. Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. They can live out of water for a long time with dying. Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
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.