Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
You would think that one day a light would go off in their heads ...
Speaking of giraffes, the Bible neglected to mention the giraffe among the acceptable animals to eat.
Does not follow.
That's because scripture makes very specific claims.
So does the overwhelming evidence for evolution. And frankly, I'll take actual *creation* as being more of a final word on the matter than anyone's *interpretation* of any book.
I believe in the validity of science. I believe in the scientific method.
No you don't -- if you did, you'd follow the evidence where it leads, instead of frantically looking for excuses to ignore it.
But I don't believe that the scientists who have adopted evolution are correct.
...because the evidence clashes with what you want to continue to believe...
There is a portion of scientific thought (evolution) that is wrong.
Please provide the evidence for this assertion of yours.
It wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last time.
Wouldn't be the first time *you've* been wrong either, would it?
There are always just some ... dim bulbs and burnouts.
Why do you feel so compelled to prove that you are right? If you know for a fact that you are right, why must you so adamantly insist that you are right? Why can you not be content with knowing? Why must you be so evangelistic in your arguments? Why is it so important to you? Do you not realize how immature it is to belittle and antagonize people?
Thanks, nice collection.
And some locked to even more distant partners. Earth and Venus, for example.
I guess we just get tired of non-scientists bringing FALSE science and the Bible to these boards to disprove evolution and then when we discuss the Bible they tell us we are not qualified to discuss the Bible since we do not have the proper biblical education inorder to properly "interpret" the Bible.
signed,
Sub Sailor
Sort of like the possibility of evolution producing man is, hmmm, infinitesimal?
The original sets of animals that God made.
List them...
The representatives of which Noah carried on the Ark.
What evidence do you have that the ones Noah allegedly took onto the Ark are the same set(s) as the ones "original made"? What are "representatives" of those "kinds"? How did the marsupial "kinds" hike it over to Autralia after the waters receded? How do you explain the diversity within "kinds" that we see today, since generating that within just a few thousand years would require a HUGELY greater amount of "within-kind evolution" than creationists are willing to accept for standard evolutionary biology? Where did all the extra alleles come from? Which member(s) of Noah's family hosted the typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, and syphilis "kinds" so that they wouldn't die out, and more interestingly, *WHY*? How many insect "kinds" were involved? What about them dinosaurs? There are 10,000 species of birds -- how many "kinds" was that? Since creationists claim that all the fossils in rock strata were laid down *during* the flood, how do you reconcile the "kinds on the ark" view with the practically limitless number of fosil species? How did all the plant "kinds" and fish "kinds" survive brackish water? How could more than a handful of "kinds" survive random influences that affect small populations? How were remote islands repopulated by "kinds"?
Now I know you'd like me to answer whether Noah carried both lions and tigers on the Ark or just representative cats. I don't know that.
Well okay then.
Reply: But the flood still happened which makes Genesis accurate and evolution false.
Perhaps you haven't been around enough to recognize that he was responding to DannyTN. He and others have been round and round with DannyTN and DannyTN does not respond to intelligent conversation. That was tried and it didn't work.
I've done both, they aren't that hard.
Sorry, but the Bible got the order *wrong* when compared to science...
Yes. One day science will have to give up on the preposterous notion that gravity causes synchronous orbit.
The moon pulls on the earth and the earth pulls on the moon but the twain never meet? Un-huh.
When the electromagnetic (push/pull) association of the planets is brought into the equation of celestial mechanics then synchronous orbit becomes not only mathematically possibly but expected.
...and another argument for ID becomes science!
Not just endowed, but well-endowed...
LMAO!
The Evolution of Improved Fitness by random mutation plus selection
I read this first example from your list. I believe you should remove it as evidence for evolution. In the article, at the start of section 2, the writer states:
Despite the logical fallacy in the creationists' dismissal of Dawkins's simulation, the seductive appeal of this argument led me to think that it could be most clearly countered if one could cite a biological example in which -- without the intervention of any intelligent designer -- successive rounds of mutation and selection could be unambiguously shown to lead to increased fitness within living organisms.He then goes on to explain current theory on how a portion of the human immune system works.
The implication is that if the body can splice genes to produce antibodies that increase an individual's fitness, then this is good evidence of a mechanism for evolution. But none of the antibody adaptations are inheritable. The gene rearrangements that produce the antibodies cannot be passed on genetically to offspring. Unless you are arguing for Lamarkian evolution, I propose that you remove this from your list.
Saturn overhead placemarker.
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.