Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Williams
You could maybe have made a better case for your quaint ideas before molecular biology started tracking mutational distances. Mutations are indeed the mechanism. There's no real controversy over that in science.
193 posted on 03/09/2005 5:40:08 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro

"yes it would, dont mention it again"

I shan't. Ok so not all my jokes can be funny. well, maybe a few can...but not that one.

I blame the boxed merlot...


194 posted on 03/09/2005 5:44:47 PM PST by Mongeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
First, I am not a creationist. Second, science has not demonstrated that RANDOM micro mutations (yes even combined with natural selection) explain evolutionary progress. And even IF the mechanism is random mutations, that does not explain WHY life contains a mechanism that permits it to adapt to its environment, branch out into many many species, AND develop consciousness such as that displayed by scientists. WHY should amino acids "randomly" evolve into intelligent beings in response to the natural environment?

IF we are not alone in this universe, I suspect the other creatures out there likewise possess intelligence, and will continue to evolve this intelligence to higher and higher levels.

Because we and they do not remain inanimate rocks or unthinking cells, we are in a sense developing into far less powerful versions of that God the scientists are so afraid of. If we are not made in His image, then whose? These changes are not random any more than the ordering of the universe is random. Whether it's a big bang, or the laws of gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics, there are rules underlying all of this. Science doesn't want to think about that big picture because it has divorced itself from all notions of philosophy and religion. But for all your explanations based on randomness, the scientists always hit a brick wall in trying to answer the "big" questions, because they find themselves talking in metaphysical terms.

I don't deny evolution for a second. But isn't it interesting that in a world teeming with life, and all the scientific study, we do not see any new life springing up any where on this vast globe? All these life forms are thriving in this environment, from elephants down to viruses, yet we don't see any inanimate chemicals coming together and forming an original life form. Indeed, scientists can't do it under controlled circumstances.

267 posted on 03/09/2005 7:14:29 PM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson