Good, then we agree. But the usefulness of that division might be as useful as the frequency division between ultraviolet and infrared.
Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
Fortunately, no one listens to creationists except for as comic relief.
The lie and the excuse in one paragraph. You are ascribing to so called natural forces the ability to intelligently design something. This is totally false. The first question that evolutionists need to answer (which they do not even ask) is who wrote these natural laws? Who enforces them?
The next thing evolutionists need to answer is how a single new gene is created. This they cannot do. For a new functional gene all you have is mere chance to work with, not natural selection. In addition you need a purpose which of course matter can have no purpose. You must have a goal, and of course mindless matter cannot have a goal. The problems are overwhelming and evolution "science" has no answer for it.
Really? What is the "proof" of the theorem of gravity?
Evolution has neither a theory nor proof of it.
It does have a theory, and it is as well "proven" as any other scientific theory.
I wonder if they will be able to answer my question in this show: if you had three doors to choose from and behind them were Twiggy, Jayne Mansfield and Janet Reno would you be able to make the correct choice if all you had to look at was an x-ray of them?
You now have the golden opportunity to put your numbers where your opinion is.
The chances of a human giving birth to a chimpanzee are so infinitesimal as to approach zero, and the proposition that it might or might not happen is utterly irrelevant to the theory of natural selection, of which you apparently understand nothing at all.
No whining, tell us what great truths you elucidated from it. Learn anything new? Have any new refutations of intelligent design?
That's correct but the selection isn't that random.
Good, then we agree. But the usefulness of that division might be as useful as the frequency division between ultraviolet and infrared.
Only in terms of instructing us about his total ignorance of the theory of natural selection.
If it is as hackneyed as you say, then perhaps you should find a refutation of it quite easily.
We have already refuted it--sand castles neither reproduce, nor mutate when they do so, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.
I don't know why atheists insist on spewing this lie. The Bible says God created life. Evolution denies it. The Bible says God created man, evolution denies it. The Bible says that God interferes in human events, evolution denies it. It is absolute nonsense to say that someone can both believe in God and evolution. They are mutually exclusive.
If you wish to say that God wrote and enforces the laws, you are free to do so without in any way refuting the theory of natural selection. This is, in fact, how many reconcile God with evolution.
A sad deviation from what otherwise so far has been a very informative program. From the way they talked during the second half of episode #2, you'd think it's only bad if Hawaii's birds go extinct from "immigrant" brown tree snakes that come in via boats an planes; if a bunch were ever to get there on a pile of tress blown there from some other Pacific Island on which the snakes are indigenous by a typhoon (and likely they would eventually, given enough time and enough typhoons and enough snakes), then the extinction of the birds would be natural and hence okay. Way too PC for my taste.
Ummm. So what great insights into the meaning of life did you elucidate from the show? What brilliant proofs of evolution did they give? Did they bother to answer the question about what exactly does the theory of evolution say? I still have a gigabyte or two left in my hard drive for new "revised" statements of what evolution is.
VEry funny! Which brings up the question - what is the materialistic explanation for art?
Not true at all, science seeks to discover what is - regardless of its origin. Further, science tries to discover the laws of nature. If God did not write those laws - then who did? Inanimate matter?
That is a completely different subject for another thread.
You must not be the same "gore3000" who has had this lie pointed out to him at least a half-dozen times in previous threads. Just how many of you are posting under the same screen name, anyway?
One more time for the lurkers: Mathematics and logic have "theorems" and "proofs."
Scientific theories are never proven in the sense that Mathematical theorems are proven. But you (or one of you) already knew that.
So, which is it: are you a different "gore3000" than the one who has had this error pointed out numerous times in the past, or are you just pretending it was never pointed out to you and hoping no one would notice you trying to sneak this nonesense in?
I will stipulate the usual hysterical accusations about "sliming you" and "lies" and so forth, so you can skip that part in your reply and just answer the questions.
No, evolution simply denies that God created life as it exists today, with no changes. Evolution has nothing to say about who set the rules and process in place billions of years ago that created the resulting natural history.
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.