Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Right. There is NO way creationists will ever accept true science.
Uh huh, but individuals don't count in evolution, only populations.
Do you think that chimp/human mating has produced creationists? ;-)
Are you saying you never visit the creationists' websites?
I have never ridiculed God. And your calling my religion perverted is very Christian of you.
If you fail to stand up to the conventional wisdom of your peers you will never be a great scientist.
But you call mine perverted. Please tell me that you recognize religious faith and scientific fact as two different things.
That's true when the changes are just allele changes. It's also true when genes are inserted or copied within existing chromosomes. But somewhere along the line, chromosomes are duplicated or fused or whatever, changing the count. Otherwise, common descent is invalid.
There are (at least) two possible scenerios when this happens: one is that it happens frequently enough within a population that the "new" types find mates; the second possibility is that sometimes this just isn't an absolute barrier to reproduction.
I haven't found a good one yet but this might be a start (fairly technical, depending on your bio background).
It's just plants. I'll try to do more later today but I'm off to work now.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss6/index.html
I don't get your point.
What you said is true, but it tends to support my point that blind faith will come back to bite you.
For instance, one reason the creationists can never come up with a peer reviewed paper on evolution is they have preconceived notions that there is no such thing.
So, in terms of the authenticity of its "tradition," creationism has as much credibility as Kwanzaa.
It's hard to take someone seriously when their first post on the thread is:
I bet the first whale that jumped on the beach and suddenly started breathing air only did so to get away from all of his pals and their cruel jokes about his freakish half hippo appearance.
Quite to the contrary, I fervently want to believe in God but since there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence and much to suggest otherwise, I don't. Sorry that I don't conform to your silly stereotype.
My statement was conditional, and included both alternatives. If I were making a definitive statement I would've began: In fact, I personally think that since abiogenesis is the ultimate origin of life on earth...
Well, it would actually since the modern thesis demands a common ancestor.
Well, no, it really, actually wouldn't. The "modern thesis" is not a religious dogma fantasized irrationally out of the ether. It is a compiled scientific paradigm established by the overwhelming evidence of common descent. The reason that the "modern thesis" is the modern thesis is simply because every form of life we've discovered clearly evidences a descent common with every other known form of life. If we uncovered some terrestrial life form that evidenced an origin apart from this common lineage, it would not even remotely undermine the scientific evidence of common descent for every other known form of life.
The modern thesis "demands" nothing aside that it account for all the scientific evidence. If the evidence changes, the thesis will change accordingly. Religion has its own separate rules so try not to confuse the two.
What evidence would it take for you to believe in God?
Evidence of his existence, as opposed to conjecture about the unexplained.
Blind faith works both ways. Abiogenesis -- to put it mildly -- is not established. What if it weren't true despite the expectations of many? Many believe it possible that everything can come into existence by undirected means. What if they are wrong? Shouldn't someone try to point that out to them?
For instance, one reason the creationists can never come up with a peer reviewed paper on evolution is they have preconceived notions that there is no such thing.
I don't know how narrowly you are defining "creationist". Since you believe in a "creator" to me you would be a "creationist".
Now the IDers aren't arguing "young earth" or even rejecting evolution -- Behe, IIRCl, has said he accepts common descent.
And of course the IDers are getting published. Why one was just published in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington". Of course the editor was then promptly fired , which may explain why they aren't published a lot.
There is far more evidence of God than of accident.
of to work.
I don't believe in accident. I believe that if every factor were known the entire universe and its entire history past, present, and future could be plotted out on a graph.
The myth that a human baby popped out of a chimp is a myth, not part of evolution.
Perhaps we should be careful not to conflate God with what men say about God.
Actually there are some ICR folks who get published. I've looked up some of their articles. Of course their published articles are mainstream science with mainstream conclusions (usually as one of several co-authors).
So my question has been and remains, what is the ID research program?
What if you are wrong?
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.