Posted on 07/05/2018 11:31:50 AM PDT by fishtank
Yeah, I always knew those paleobiology departments were dens of iniquity.
That is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Science neither posits nor denies a creator as it is not applicable in the Scientific Method (which I gather you are not familiar with).
>>In other words, if something is real then science can ultimately reproduce it. This is what science is.
Evolution is not real. Think of it as analogous to all talk and no action.<<
You should stop. You are showing your ignorance and embarrassing yourself. TToE is used extensively in immunology. Have you never heard of how viruses adapt?
Pest control directly applies TToE in trying to keep ahead of how pests adapt to insecticides and of course in how to adapt produce to fight them off.
Those are off the top of my head.
You do not know science. You probably think Gravity and The Theory of Gravity are the same thing.
You should not opine on subjects on which you have no knowledge.
if the relaince is on faith, there is by definition no reason
When you look at the structure of Aristotelian logic and then you examine any particular example of it, you see that all reason is founded on faith.
All examples of adaptation to environmental factors such as pesticides are examples of change within a species. Never change from one species to another.
This kills evolution theory.
That's ridiculous. It doesn't falsify anything about the theory. Evolution doesn't predict anything different in those circumstances.
Only for the dense and poorly educated does such a thought have a basis in reality
No. I'm not the first to point out that you don't know what you are talking about.
Does geology require that we reproduce the Earth? Silly.
Experiments and studies have to be reproducible. A theory does not require there be experiments to test it, it only requires that there be tests. It must make predictions. Those predictions may be about things we'll find in the world. Evolution does this. It makes predictions about what we should find with regard to fossils, genetics and other aspects of the world. If it weren't true then any of those predictions may falsify the theory if what we find doesn't support it. It hasn't worked that way. The things we find all support the theory.
IT is what is not 'found' that also destroys the theory. Evolutionists, readily admit they cannot 'test' the soul/spirit intellect that makes a flesh being alive... Basically, evolution is a belief system to attempt to disprove the Bible... Oh, literal reading of the Bible says this 'earth' is very, very, very, old... Flesh man, however, is not all that old in comparison to the age of the universe. When did God create all souls/spirit intellect???? Science/evolutionists cannot say.
More drivel.
>>All examples of adaptation to environmental factors such as pesticides are examples of change within a species. Never change from one species to another.
This kills evolution theory.<<
You are once again factually and scientifically wrong. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to tell you just how wrong you are.
Stop.
Just stop.
You look like a child trying to grasp something well beyond your knowledge level. I assume you are.
I am so sick and tired of people who believe St. George killed a dragon singling out only certain parts of the Hebrew Bible to be scorned and disbelieved. They (and the mainline Protestant churches) deserve everything that is happening to them. They have called G-d a liar for over a hundred years and it's time for them to die, no matter how "eternal" and "unchanging" they claim to be.
What's the difference between six day literal creationism and the virgin birth? Both are equally scientifically impossible. But when science says the latter is impossible they tell it to shut up and simply respond "it's a miracle." But when the same scientist rejects Genesis they insist that it would be heresy to disagree!
Did you know these hypocrites actually believe that Mary gave birth miraculously without tearing her hymen? But they reject Genesis, Joshua, Esther, and Jonah out of hand! And then they claim that Francis is betraying their "unchanging" church!
I live in the only county in my area with absolutely no Catholic presence whatsoever. And no wonder. With tracts on display defending evolution, they will never get a foothold here.
The only possible explanation for this hypocrisy is that they hate and despise the people with whom Genesis literalism is most associated, the rural American "redneck" (they seem to assume that Blacks have always been Darwinists). I assure them the feeling is mutual, and if the Fundamentalist Protestants of this country knew just how low an opinion of the Bible Catholics and Orthodox have, whatever prejudice against them would increase several fold.
PS: There are a few Catholic dissidents who actually dare to accept all events in the Bible as historical--even in the "old testament." The Kolbe Center has an article up now complaining about the widespread acceptance of the blatant lie that total inerrancy and six day creationism are a Fundamentalist Protestant "innovation" with absolutely no roots in the ancient past.
Nonsense. That's not even language an scientist would use.
"Basically, evolution is a belief system to attempt to disprove the Bible"
No. Evolution is a theory to explain what we see in the world.
But evolution predicts fossils would be present in an evenly distributed manner, throughout “geologic time.”
But what we see is the Cambrian Explosion where a vast amount of species appeared all at once.
“The only possible explanation for this hypocrisy is that they hate and despise the people with whom Genesis literalism is most associated, the rural American “redneck” (they seem to assume that Blacks have always been Darwinists). I assure them the feeling is mutual, and if the Fundamentalist Protestants of this country knew just how low an opinion of the Bible Catholics and Orthodox have, whatever prejudice against them would increase several fold.”
___
The RCC phobia against justification by grace through faith has a YUUUUUGGGEEEEE part to play in their evolutionary mindset, as well.
No it doesn't. Did you just make that up?
RIF keeps making outlandish and factually incorrect statements, then posting a conclusion.
I have seen straw man arguments before but never this badly and boldly done. They are akin to saying “When I plug my lamp in the wall it uses nanobots to ferry the light from the wall to the light bulb. Thus there are angels.”
Very few people are bold enough to be wrong over and over in such a baldfaced manner. I am almost impressed with the brazenness of it. Almost.
Thank God there are enough of us who understand science here so lurkers won’t think we are stupid, ignorant and/or nuts.
(courtesy ping to the subject of the discussion, per FR protocol)
Of course it predicts random distribution, because it claims the process is random.
Did you think evolution theory was accepted as a theory of design?
You continue to show your lack of knowledge.
No it does not predict a random distribution of fossil change over time. And there are good reasons why that distribution should not be random, which I'm sure will go right over your head.
Lifeforms evolve to fill niches in their ecosystem. In a mature ecosystem the available niches are filled by existing species and it can fall into a sort of equilibrium with very slow change, because there is relatively little pressure to drive change.
But at certain boundary events, like when multi-cellular life develops, or after a mass extinction, there is suddenly lots of open space in the eco-system and lifeforms will quickly (in evolutionary terms) branch out to fill it.
So uneven distribution of new species over time is not only not surprising, it should be expected.
And no, the process is not random. Wrong again.
Variation is random. Mutation and sexual reproduction are what generate variation. But that's only the raw material. Natural selection is the process by which the good mutations are kept and the bad ones rejected, and that's not random. It's biased in favor of survivability and reproduction. That's sort of the whole point of the theory of evolution. The non-random process of natural selection.
Flip a hundred pennies in the air. Keep the heads and put the tails back in the pool to flip again. You'll eventually get a perfectly ordered row of a hundred pennies lying heads up. The flip is random. The process is certainly not.
"Did you think evolution theory was accepted as a theory of design?"
As far as I can tell, this doesn't mean anything.
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.