Jonathan Wells Hits an Evolutionary Nerve (over origin of functional genetic information)

Discovery Institute ^ | October 14, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

When intelligent design (ID) proponents press neo-Darwinian evolutionists on the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce new functional genetic information, a common response from evolutionists is that they get angry and engage in name calling. That’s what happened when...

[betty boop]

And, as I recall, tortoise (an excellent mathematician) was pointing out the weakness of abiogenesis theory in that it would require a much large[r] phenomena than a single common ancestor (by the numbers) to survive a prebiotic environment. But he was also arguing against himself by saying via this new fallacy that [it is an error to construe] any point (quantization) in the continuum of the tree of life would be material to identify as the moment species B is no longer a member of species A.

I wish he was still around. Tortoise, as you say an excellent mathematician, was a fine, respectful correspondent from whom one could learn much. He was never (according to my recollection) a bomb-thrower.

Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your very kind words!

[hosepipe]

[ In short, yours is a philosophical/theological question, not a scientific one. Or so it seems to me, FWIW. ]

Well in saying humans evolved.. thats saying the 3rd human didn't come from the first two.. Tracing humanity backwards gets ultimately to this question.. but then tracing humanity backwards might indeed not be scientific..

Another thing overlooked is that maybe planets and animals evolved but man didn't that man was created special.. with a different origination... On a different time-frame..

[Alamo-Girl]

If you have that conversation at a table, and the two year olds insist that they all need a place at the table and need to be included in that conversation, do you let them?

When asked respectfully, I answered respectfully explaining why they could or could not be a part of the conversation or table game or whatever. In my experience, children return respect.

But another rule I had was never to repeat myself. If I said no, that was it. If whining ensued, they were on ignore just as much as if they were throwing a full blown temper tantrum.

I probably was a tough mom with all my rules - but in my experience kids want attention and they should have it but not as a reward for poor behavior. In fact, I'm sure I was a tough mom - when my daughter would misbehave I'd start counting. I seldom got past three. LOLOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

I wish he was still around. Tortoise, as you say an excellent mathematician, was a fine, respectful correspondent from whom one could learn much. He was never (according to my recollection) a bomb-thrower.

Indeed. I miss him, too.

[tacticalogic]

In this context, some of the children are angry and militant, and ready to scream “child abuse” at the first sign you going to lay a hand on them.

[Alamo-Girl]

In my view, no side in the crevo wars has clean hands.

[tacticalogic]

I don’t either. But the point is that there are those who address it in absolutes, and engage it as an exercise in polarization. For them, it’s an all or nothing proposition and if they can’t have it all, they’ll try to make sure nobody gets anything. Anyone who’d have tried to do that from an atheist perspective was gone from here long ago.

[Alamo-Girl]

Anyone who’d have tried to do that from an atheist perspective was gone from here long ago.

Free Republic is pro-God. Atheists might not be able to fit in very well.

[tacticalogic]

Free Republic is pro-God. Atheists might not be able to fit in very well.

I am pro-God. But I don't require that someone else believe in God to come to a political or scientific agreement with them.

[Alamo-Girl]

I understand, but do you think the crevo debate can ever be void of theological insights?

[tacticalogic]

I understand, but do you think the crevo debate can ever be void of theological insights?

Of course not. But I think it starts getting corrosive just about the time it starts getting doctrinal.

[Alamo-Girl]

Of course not. But I think it starts getting corrosive just about the time it starts getting doctrinal.

That's nothing new:

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? - I Cor 3:1-5

[tacticalogic]

That's nothing new:

I didn't say it was new, I said it was corrosive.

[Alamo-Girl]

I don't worry about things I cannot affect:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28

Instead, I center on the things I can affect:

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, - 2 Timothy 2:24

[tacticalogic]

What happened if you did make it to “10”?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! I never got that high.

[tacticalogic]

LOLOL! I never got that high.

Did you have any idea what you'd do if you did, or was it all bluff?

[Alamo-Girl]

I only had to spank my daughter once. She became Christian early on. She matured very well indeed.

Of a truth, when we love someone we want what he/she wants.

The kid who loves the other kid agrees to play the game he wants to play. If the wife wants the bedroom painted, the loving husband will find a way.

And the child who loves her mom and dad doesn't put up a fight when told to do her homework, clean her room, etc.

The principle is most important in our Christian walk. When we keep the one and only Great Commandment to love God with all our hearts, souls and minds (Matt 22) we really do mean it when pray "Our Father ... thy will be done..."

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. - John 14:23

Where love is, obedience is no effort and fear melts away.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. - I John 4:18

God's Name is I AM.

[tacticalogic]

So are we supposed to gently but firmly remove them from that table, or wait patiently while they finish an argument that’s been going on for 2000 years?

[Alamo-Girl]

As in the above example, it depends on the table and what's on it.

The "table" in this case is Free Republic, Jim's house, Jim's rules. And what's on the table depends on the content of the article or sidebar.