Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I am not asserting the arrow of time reverses. I am saying evolution occasionally backtracks and reverses changes.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uouh-sre073106.php
Among many possible links.
Please don't get into monkeys changing into fish. That Hollywood caricature is so tiresome.
I'm willing to start over on this point, if you are willing to tell me what the point is.
I think the quote was in post 249 rather than 238. The kind of typo I'm good at. But I have it covered.
I'm glad you linked to 238 however. It contains a wish to have Yockey studied in high school.
Yockey turns out to be the Brier patch. Since the anti-evolutionists have been touting him for as long as I have been following these threads, I assumed he was a Behe/Dembski clone.
Imagine my surprise when I find he is a vocal anti-creationist who believes abiogenesis happened in a completely naturalistic way. Not only that, but he has written peer reviewed articles from the standpoint of information theory, arguing that "Darwinism" has been proved beyond doubt.
(Nothing personal)
Amen, Christ Jesus came and died and rose again to establish relationship not religion.
"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
~Jesus, John 4:23-24"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
~Jesus, John 17:3And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
~1 John 5:20
I agree, Pipe; the study called Science ought to be unbiased and completely factual, but as all can see now, it is not; it has become a my-science-right-or-wrong belief system for some and a barometer of belief to others.
What is not at all clear is the origin of the genetic code itself.
Good points and exposition all, dear betty boop, as always; these I've copied above were my favorites!
We all remember that quote, right? And if you happen to not remember it because there's no documentary evidence that he said such a thing, it doesn't really matter - what's important is that none of us can honestly testify about what he didn't say, and so therefore you can attribute anything to anyone you like, and nobody can ever accuse you of making it up. Have fun!
Do you mind not shotgun pinging me to posts that are not replies to my posts, are not about me, and are not about something I've been talking about?
Can you be specific about which reactions warrant your characterization? I think you've asked some interesting questions, and I hardly expected the "Darwinism is just a religion" from you.
I didn't say or mean to imply that Darwinism is "just a religion." It is a scientific theory that appears to have "good legs." There are other scientific theories that also seem to have "good legs," such as the big bang/inflationary universe model. But I don't "worship" either theory. And if subsequent investigation should undermine either one, I wouldn't be "upset."
However, it is clear to me that for some other people, the attachment to Darwinist evolutionary theory has become a sort of passionate faith commitment that bears all the signs of belief in the religious sense.
Thanks for writing LibertarianSchmoe!
I can say, and have repeatedly said on this thread that life from life or life begets life or omne vivum ex vivo is the necessary presupposition for the theory of evolution which Darwin did say (many times and in many ways) and also, ironically, is the Law of Biogenesis though he did not posit a theory of biogensis v abiogenesis.
Darwin envisioned the evolutionary tree of life as a continuum as these sentences sourced to him at post 1609 attest (emphasis mine):
Frankly, the manner in which you and js1138 have prosecuted this issue suggests that the subject is not the substance of the matter but rather a goal to tarnish another Freeper, an activity which is expressly disallowed on this Religion Forum.
I further assert that it has been a common technique on the evolutionist side of the debate to call their opponents liars. That such a technique would be used at all suggests there is weakness on your side of the debate, i.e. a person doesn't throw spitwads if he has ammunition.
The Religion Moderator has set the tone twice concerning two different Freepers. Both at post 456 and 1648, the term false statement was used to describe the same error by posters on your side of the debate. In neither case was the evolutionist Freeper who made the false statement tarnished - neither was an apology sought nor was one offered in either case.
Going any further than the substance of the statement - true or false - is an attempt to attribute motive and/or tarnish the poster, which is clearly "making it personal" - also expressly disallowed on this Religion Forum.
I disagree. I think that the passion you see is attached to the scientific method, which has resulted in the formation and refinement of the SToE, one of the most, if not the most, validated theory in science. I've never seen one on this side of the debate say that the SToE is beyond questioning. But when a (legitimate) question is answered, and the answer is ignored, or the goalposts are moved, it becomes frustrating. When the questions aren't born of curiosity, but malice and hostility, the issue is no longer about the validity of the SToE; it becomes about that thing that gives birth to the malice and hostility.
I hope that you'll consider this point. And, again, thanks back!
Much like wave/particle duality, position/momentum in the uncertainty principle and the ilk - faith and reason are complementary (reason cannot substitute for faith).
Bury the truth all you want, but it is the truth and you damn well know it.
No it isn't. You are simply wrong.
As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch... refers to a specific period of time, the era of single celled organisms (long before the Cambrian -- a period encompassing approximately 3.3 billion years).
If you want to participate in this debate, you simply have to wrap your mind around what common descent actually means. It means that all multi-celled organisms on earth are descended from the population of pre-cambrian single-celled organisms. That's what the Darwin quote says, and that's pretty close to the modern theory.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence from the identical cell machinery in all cellular organisms, that all cellular life is related.
The statement that life can only come from life is a statement about the impossibility of abiognesis. Both Darwin and Yockey are on record in the clearest possible terms supporting abiogenesis as either a possibility or, in Yockey's case, a near certainty.
The facts are quite plain here. Someone has made a false statement on this forum and attributed a quote to Darwin that Darwin's writings contradict.
Excuse me? Within the last day I've seen the fake "Darwin recanted on his Deathbed" yarn, and I've seen false claims that there are no transitional fossils. It would behoove the creationists and ID-ists to police their own, tell their compatriots that by making claims that even AiG has disowned they are lowering the credibility of all anti-evolution activists.
Scratch Yockey off the list. He is on record saying the origin of life is natural.
He also says we cannot reconstruct the exact history of abiogenesis. This is equivalent to saying we cannot reconstruct any complex historical event in perfect detail. We do not, however, say battle of Hastings was impossible without an "essential" cause.
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.