Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
Hello, eastsider. You can get even closer to the Church than the Greeks. That venerable Augustine was a spherical earther. He was also a bit of an evolutionist.Hello, Nebullis! In what sense was Augustine an evolutionist? At first glance, it seems an odd position to take for a double (absolute) predestinarian.
My first thought was Them, a movie wherein the ants apparently benefitted.
I know of no scientific reports to confirm any cases of this type of benefit--but I would certainly not think it's out the question. One problem is that the great majority of radiation-induced mutations, of those reported so far, are lethal. So it's hard to get data when the experiment keeps wiping out your subjects. My own opinion concerning putative beneficial radiation-induced mutagenesis is that this would be not only in the realm of possibility but also one of probability.
Ah, very interesting... I hadn't considered an anti-body model for latent mutagenic capacities.
I'm flagging a couple of the FR doctors and scientists to see if they can shed any light on what you're describing.
That is precisely the point: it's the exact same defect in the genes of related species. See, for discussion and references, crevo debate
What you're thinking of is cases like sickle cell anemia and thallesemia (sp?) which are different diseases, caused by different mutations. Both mutations are positively selected for in areas with malaria.
It seems to me that the presence of a nonfunctional gene for a vital nutrient is evidence against intelligent design and any form of creationism that attempts to 'explain' anything more recent than the initial creation of life. Are there any orthopedic surgeons who are creationists ?
Please list some testable predictions made by intelligent design theory or creation theory. They *are* scientific, aren't they?
Um. No, that's incredibly ignorant of you to say. The same old argument. Anybody who doesn't want to believe in God, will find any excuse not to. They can say it's because of evolution but that's just a crap reason.
That is religious, too. It is against a creationist religious viewpoint, and is against Christianty in general. Christianity is based on the fact of man's sin, and Christ's death on the cross to pay for that sin. Do away with Adam, you do away with sin entering the world. Do away with sin entering the world, you can do away with the need for Jesus Christ's death on the cross.
It is not against Christianity. Creationism does not = Christianity. Anything that does not, in your opinion, reek of "God did it" (and evolution in my opinion, does) is automatically the Anti-Christ.
Pretty much, yes. However, Evolution and Christianity are NOT compatible, because of Adam. Either sin entered the world through Adam, the MAN CREATED on day 6, like the Bible says, or it didn't. There can be no compromise on this. Either sin entered the world through a created being, Adam or it didn't. Either Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, that entered the world through Adam, or He didn't.
It is really quite simple. Either the Bible is correct, or it isn't. That means evolution has to be wrong, and is incompatible with Christianity. Too many things of the Bible have to be abandoned to believe in ANY form of evolution.
You sure? Ah, well, that's too bad. Christianity was a real nice religion while it lasted. Love your neighbor, real pretty cathedrals, undergirding the maturation of Western Civilization. It's a shame all that moral, spiritual and practical accomplishment rested on one particularistic reading of the Bible's secular history. But Race insists on it, and now nearly everyone not apriori committed, like Race, to biblical inerrancy knows that this history is wrong, so might as well move on.
What religion do you suggest former Christians adopt, Race? It would be nice if it were one that can't be overturned completely by some piddling scientific theory.
Soulless stupid wonder---you--quila...explains the universe in ape--evolution talk---backwards!!
Your thinking--"science" does change--yeag...getting worse--dumber...
Don't confuse TRUTH NEVER CHANGES---with your religion---evolution/atheism/animalism!
Can you read--understand this...Quila = ape think--talk/evolution badmouthing God-Truth???
Well, that's a partial truth. It certainly holds if you ask me to prove that water is made of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. I can demonstrate that, all day long. However, that kind of demonstration isn't possible, nor is it expected, in areas of science that require discovery of past events. Examples are geology (we can't re-create the Grand Canyon); and evolution (we can't re-create man from an amoeba). A more everyday example is criminal detection, as we can't re-create OJ killing Nicole. But in these historical matters, we are not helpless. We have the capacity to look at presently discoverable evidence (or clues, if you will). And we can frame perfectly rational hypotheses regarding how such clues came to be created. A good example is in examining a corpse to see the cause of death. We can't kill the person all over again, but it can be very scientifically demonstrated as to how the wounds (or whatever) happened. This is indeed science, even if some people claim it is not.
Further, an hypothesis developed in an historical science can be tested, because it does indeed lead to predictions. To continue with the crime analogy, if the working hypothesis is that the butler did it, you can then predict that the butler will have been in town at the time of the crime, and will not have a reliable alibi (sp?). In evolution, it can be predicted that if all living species today evolved from earlier species, there will never be discovered a fossil of a "modern" species which existed prior to a time when its ancestral stock existed. In other words, no human fossils wlll be found in the age of dinosaurs. These predictions are borne out every time a new fossil is found, and thus evolution is being constantly tested every day.
I started reading the first line as I was scrolling and realized it was you. I'd say the style most resembles the song "Who's Laughing Now?". Does your mind actually operate in this manner, or do you put your thoughts into this form as you are writing? In either case, from an artistic point of view, I am very interested and quite impressed (seriously -- no joke).
But please, in a debate, please use straight English.
And that is why creationism is religion, not in any way related to science.
Watch, as soon as you mention that, they'll say "But Christ freed us of all of the old laws" while thinking many are still valid. The salad bar of morality.
Our friend, f.Christian, makes a good living writing Chinese cookie fortunes.
you--quila are a defect of His universe---pre-post life form exhibiting post intelligent--primitive--animal behavior thought...
DUH--evolution = science rants--ravings attacking God-Truth...
quila = butcher-QUACK-hack!
you--quila are a defect of His universe
So, He screwed up? He should have consulted you, perhaps?
Spontaneous implies no casuation; The two examples that may be useful, e.g., bacterium and immune cells may well be responding to extraneous stimuli, either radiation or foreign material. Their mutigenesis in these circumstances may not be "spontaneous."
Random may not be applicable either. Responding to an environmental stressor may well be a non-random event.
That said, this does not reduce the signifcance of mutagenesis that has the appearance to be both random and spontaneous.
I propose a test to determine the "information content" of his posts:
If it makes as much sense read backwards as forwards, it is doubtful that it contains much useful information.
Try it; I think you'll find the results tantalizing.
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.
