Posted on 05/25/2009 5:48:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Lots of words, but no answer to the question, nowhere in that text did you even attempt to answer my question.
What experiments can do show that would support this assertion?
Also I am a Christian, I have made a public profession of faith and been baptized God has opened my eyes, and mind.
No, what it means is that Darwinism is insufficient to account for the observed data(excluding just-so stories). The answer to the observation that the core elements are present in all living organisms(not mentioned are viruses and prions for those who consider them living, I don't) and are so "complex" as to defy a Darwinian explanation, is not given. They are "stupified" by the observation.
The big words that confuse you are to explain the observation. Your question was answered quite simply, find a naturalistic explanation. Otherwise you tacitly admit to the inadequacy of empirical science to answer a question concerning natural objects.
Does this replace punctuated equilibrium?
[[But fear not, like the 300 mpg carburetter, the primordial soup just needs a few more secret ingredients and tweaking to make it work.]]
Not to mention artifically lad-manipulated designer elements in order to ‘kick start’ the whole process, and a few made up scenarios involving biologically impossible feats of natural magic to overcome impossible odds- but meh- given ‘enough time’ anyhtign is... meh- scratch that- impossible is still impossible
[[Does this replace punctuated equilibrium?]]
You’ve got a punctuated equillibrium? Take two aspirin and get to the docs as soon as possible
Viruses.
It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.
Are you dyslexic?
Nope, but evos have had one for quite a while, it replaced their Neo Darwnism.
Again same song different verse, it is too complex to understand so God did it.
Those are not explanations that can falsify your previous statement. Pointing out a perceived weakness in Darwin’s theory does nothing to answer the basic question of how to falsify a supernatural explanation. Failure to accept the naturalistic explanations that have been provided does not provide a means to falsify a supernatural explanation.
I am not asking any questions regarding Darwin’s theory, using misconceptions and straw men against evolution do nothing to answer the question that I asked. The only replies that have offered have been attempts at misdirection
If “creation science” wants to be taken seriously then it will need to stand on its own, and provide falsifiable evidence to support their theory and so far they have failed to do that.
Being able to falsify your theory is a basic part of the Scientific Method with out that there is no theory.
In order to receive any credibility within the scientific community it is the starting point. These are the rules that all scientist play by and “creation science” should not get a free pass.
Let’s try a parable this time; I hear a crash in the kitchen, walk in there and find my son, a chair, and a broken cookie jar. I asked my son what happened and he tells me a ghost broke the cookie jar and then disappeared. He was simply using the chair to hide from the ghost. How can I disprove his story?
The Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life.
It only addresses how life has changed since its inception.
Repeating the same fallacy, over and over again does not make it fact.
Punch him in the stomach until he vomits.
[[Repeating the same fallacy, over and over again does not make it fact.]]
So why do you insist on repeating hte silly fallicy that macroevolution doesn’t include origins? Even if it didn’t- which it most certainly does, starting life at any point, and expectign species specific meainformation to just pop up out of nowhere to maintain species fitness while it moves beyond it’s own kind, still blows the hypothesis of macroevolution right out of hte water- so while you might feel safe falsely claiming macroevolution doesn’t invovle origins, I’m afraid there are still equally serious problems facing macroevolution even further down hte line- but whatever, we’ve discussed these problems in detail many times on FR- it’s apparent you either haven’t read them, or simply ignore them- have a nice day
[[Are you dyslexic?]]
npoe
K.O.
So.... I can assume you trained your cat to type?
(I’m just curious, as your repeatedly ‘swap’ letters, often on the same word)
Speaking of strawmen, you keep building a fine one. Two things, first, the scientists involved are the ones that essentially say there exists no empirically supported explanation for the genesis of the core elements apparent in the cell. Second, your question has been answered even though you don't like tha answer.
You admit to being a Chrstian in post 61, therefore you accept that there are supernatural explanations for events that are otherwise inexplicable by "natural" causes. Now in the history of mankind how were "erroneous" supernatural explanations scientifically disproven? I sincerely hope that you can answer that.
Your parable is not complete. There is no way your son could have reached or touched the cookie jar and no earthquakes, storms or the like occurred since you last saw the cookie jar. And no other living thing capable of breaking cookie jars existed in the kitchen. Now the silly parable is complete.
And if they were ‘averting their eyes at the proper moment’ then Darwinists should have no problem with the idea that life was created as complex perfectly functioning forms.
Instead they're devising scenarios and experiments to find an origin of life. Evidently the theorists do address the question so that in practice the origin question has become very much a part of the theory.
The fallacy is that the piano player in the front parlor isn't part of what goes on upstairs.
“How can I disprove his story?”
You don’t have to disprove his story. Just tell him that no father you know of believes his story and that the boy has no proof you will accept as factual, plus you have a degree from smart people and he does not.
Moreover, you can carefully explain that you can construct, without even being there when the incident happened, a narrative that accounts for all the evidence without bringing the ghost into it while the boy can’t.
Problem for the boy is, he did see the ghost but can’t make it appear at his beckoning so it seems a major part of his story is missing and for the present will remain so.
But you don’t want to call the boy a liar, so you can just say you’ll believe him if, if he can just show the ghost to you. Of course you won’t but by demanding that which is out of his hands you may show how weak his story is and how unlikely to be believed by others. (you hope)
So the question should be not how can you disprove his story since the mention of ghosts has already accomplished that in your mind but whether your disbelief makes the boy a liar or insane or even evil.
Don’t want the little guy embarrassing Dad, right?
Evolution is only possible through HETEROSEXUAL relationships...
Evolution is only possible through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
How many "scientists" out there have been making up excuses for homosexuals?
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.