Posted on 04/15/2009 10:52:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]
Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.
Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Can you believe this guy?!?!?! Hey TQC, you’re a scientist...is there anything you would like to add to Filo’s brilliant comments...LOL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2229751/posts?q=1&;page=201#222
“Just for the record, was it a cheeseburger???” [excerpt]Rutabaga, Cauliflower, and Arugula, I believe. (ie, vegetable isle)
“Rutabaga, Cauliflower, and Arugula, I believe. (ie, vegetable isle)”
Were they covered in cheese and gravy?
==Because, in spite of your ignorant assertions to the contrary, both have been observed.
I’m all ears.
==The fossil record is filled with examples of speciation and the fact that there is life is proof of abiogenesis.
Last I checked the fossil record is forensic evidence that is subject to inferences about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Neither macro-evolution, nor abiogenesis has ever been observed to be occurring, let alone repeated by operational science in the present.
==The fossil record is filled with examples of speciation and the fact that there is life is proof of abiogenesis.
The fossil record is filled with discontinuities, which is precisely what Darwood’s fanciful creation myth DOES NOT predict.
==If you have studied the above and can’t see the light then nothing I write will ever sway you from your ignorance.
Wow, ducking out before I have even had a chance to get started. Very smart move—if you’re dishonest. Be sure to drop me a line when you have finally found the courage of your convictions.
“How many "naturalists" are really paid for that?” [excerpt]I think the real question is, how many are collage trained for that.
“Nope. Scientific credentials are earned by doing science, not bong hits.” [excerpt]You are wrong again.
“Some of those drop-outs may well be scientists much as many PhDs are not. . . ” [excerpt]Having a PhD does not make you a scientist, and failing med school certainly doesn't.
No, you get the James Hansen medal of enlightenment.Sorry, no Gorebel prize for you.“Well thank God* for small favors, eh?” [excerpt]
I didn’t realize they fell out of my basket...they were supposed to garnish my rotisserie pig :o)
“Were they covered in cheese and gravy?”I highly doubt it.
bb:
Filo, the question I asked was: “...how intelligence could arise from a random cause.”
filo:
Exactly. And the evolution of intelligence versus the formation of life (abiogenesis) are two different things.
IOW, he has no answer. Period. This is clearly too much and way over his pay-grade. It’s not a difficult question to understand, and saying they’re two different things merely exposes your incredible weakness. It reminds me of the bridge arguments a while back. As if bridges are designed just out of thin air without studying the land they’re built upon, the space, water, etc. they span, the fault lines in the area, the geology of the area...it’s like saying bridge archoitecture can not and will not be discussed while discussing geology, for some strange illogical nonsensical bizarre reason. But this IS liberalism we’re beholding bettyboop!
bb:
Shouldn’t a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?
Absolutely, and of course, speaking of reasonableness, this is what a resonable person would understand.
But filo’s response?
“Not necessarily.”
Now THAT non-response cop-out answers itself. Filo is floundering. Very badly. If he wasn’t so hopelessly arrogant I might even feel some sorrow for him.
bb:
As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don’t find that sort of thing terribly helpful.
No rational person does...and Edward Peltzer observes as much below!
filo:
Not at all. That is merely your twisted and willfully ignorant interpretation.
Sir-project-alot seems to have no other response bettyboop. I’ve seen some doozies when it comes to liberal projections but...this is on up there!
filo:
The origins of life are not, but we can come up with theories that have testable hypothesis that will ultimately be reasonable or not.
Ummmm Filo? You destroyed the reasonable argument all by yourself a long long time ago.
Speaking of consulting and reading Filo:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Sir-project-alot, your “arguments” are comical. In the liberal world up is down and down is up.
“Were they covered in cheese and gravy?”
“I highly doubt it.”
Did you miss that this was my dream? Well since you brought it up I reckon you can choose the condiments.
Who taught your theology class?
Was it William Ayres?
Ward Churchhill?
LOL!
Don’t forget about the “good” Rev. Wright!!!
Does that mean that my rotisserie pig was a dream too!?!?! If so, I’m still dreaming, so don’t wake me up!!!
“Does that mean that my rotisserie pig was a dream too!?!?! “
And a fine dream it is. Don’t let anyone take this moment away from you. You deserve it...
I would check first to make sure that swine doesn’t have a fever, though.
“Did you miss that this was my dream? Well since you brought it up I reckon you can choose the condiments.” [G2]
“Does that mean that my rotisserie pig was a dream too!?!?! If so, I’m still dreaming, so don’t wake me up!!!” [G3]Yeah yeah, dreaming is fine, JUST CUT OUT THE SLEEP WALKING!
Abiogenesis has been observed? Where? When? Sources? What macro-evolution has been observed?
The fossil record is filled with examples of speciation and the fact that there is life is proof of abiogenesis.
Um, the fossil record is full of fossils. That's all. It doesn't *prove* anything because the ToE is all based on the interpretation of the fossil record. Lining them up and deciding that they support your preconceived notions is proof of nothing.
As far as "the fact that there is life is proof of abiogenesisis" absurd beyond belief. If that's the kind of reasoning evos use, it's no wonder they believe in evolution.
If a creationist said, "The fact that there is life is proof that God created us", DC would shut down from the overload of traffic from you guys making fun of it.
It's really pretty neat when you use your brain.
You should try it some time.
==I would check first to make sure that swine doesn’t have a fever, though.
The higher the fever the better...it’s all part of the slow cooking process!
It’s either that or listen to Filo drone on about his absolute faith in materialist miracles.
How do you know that life is a fact? Perhaps we are just players in some advanced computerized game?
“It’s either that or listen to Filo drone on about his absolute faith in materialist miracles.”
Sometimes the only true relief is walking out on a perfectly droll athiest.
Wonder if Filo believes in double cheesburgers. What about it, Filo? You gotta believe in something! Or are you gonna tell me Southern Fried Chicken was a hopeful accident too?
“Sometimes the only true relief is walking out on a perfectly droll athiest.” [excerpt]Atheists are some of the best free entertainment around.
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.