Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwins natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. Thats what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
We share no ancestor; we share a creator, and he lives.
Are there many races?.. -OR- are all decended from "Adam and Eve".. meaning theres merely ONE race..
"Nothing is settled with respect to the theory of evolution but if you expect real scientists to entertain physical impossibilites and stories of magic as legitmate positions from which to debate science, you have no place in such a debate."
Oh, goody.
Spontaneous generation.
We haven't discussed that in a long, long while.
:>)
Yes, that’s it, I’m intellectually inferior to this condescending astrobiologist with his copy of Darwin. ...Please! Think about it. The guy is an “astrobiologist.” Whew! I bet he is overwhelmed with evidence of life out there. (Dare we call it faith)? I’ll stick with my faith in God the Creator. If this “scientist” could open up his closed mind, he might find my beliefs reasonable.
My post does not reflect my views. It was an observation of the logical conclusions of Darwinism.
There can be no need for that book; all the Idiots already believe in evolution.
The nice thing about dogma is that it frees you from the burden of thought.
No, I get how it’s supposed to work in principle. It’s just that I look around at humankind as it actually is, all the stupidity and folly it gets up to, and I think “THESE are the fittest? You’re kidding, right?”
Obviously not, looking at threads like these. But here's another you might feel more comfortable with
Creation... evolution... I dunno. I wasn’t there to see what happened. Come to think of it, no one else I know was there either. Evolutionists point to old bones and say they prove that evolution is the one true science. Creationists point to the same pile of bones and sy they prove creationism is the one true religion. Then both side cook up “evidence” to prove their theories. In the end both theories are just that... theories, both of which are supported by circumstantial evidence.
Frankly, I think both shoulkd be taught in school, with no preference shown to either.
And which one of the literally hundreds of creation stories would you teach?
Where to start...?
“sy” should be “say”, “both side” should be “both sides” and “shoulkd” was supposed to be “should.”
This is obviously not one of my better days. I think I’ll just go back to bed...
That's true in a sense. To stop thinking about things that are illogical and not true is truly a blessing and truly freeing.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
where do you think liberals come from?
“...the field of epigentetics is discovering that mutation is not random...”
does that mean that democrat/socialist/communist/totalitarian/oppressive punks won’t be able to subscribe to the theory that we’re all just animals which were an accident of evolution?
(thanks for the response.)
Got a source for your preposterous assertion? If mutations are not random then it should be easy to show that they are not. Strangely enough every experiment on mutation shows that they ARE random.
Do you think God has no control over “random” processes? You think HIS power stops at the casino door? That either something is under the control of God or it is random? Many processes in life and physics are random, this in no way indicates that God in not in control.
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.