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

To: AntiGuv

No, I wasn't claiming that it was. What this article says could just as easily be interpreted one way as the other. For instance, if God were designing apes and men, it stands to reason that He would use many of the same materials.

(I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that this doesn't really prove that men evolved from apes. Before Darwin came along, the "great chain of being" that goes back to the ancient Greeks organized the members of the animal and plant kingdoms in much the same way as Darwinists did later. It was understood that there was a hierarchy of complexity, or of lower and higher orders.)


12 posted on 04/13/2005 7:01:00 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Cicero

God would not use materials, he would conjure them. ;^)


14 posted on 04/13/2005 7:04:46 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero
For instance, if God were designing apes and men, it stands to reason that He would use many of the same materials.

Clearly He did so, but the mechanism of reuse is what's in contention.

85 posted on 04/13/2005 9:22:51 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero

If we were created by God, then what possible observation would be different from what we would observe if we are the result of evolution? If both ideas produce identical observable results, the science will assume the simpler one. The ideas boil down to: We see certain observations. We can account for these observations by well understood natural processes or we can account for them by well understood natural processes and, in addition, an omnipotent supernatural being. Simpler, in a scientific sense, means we should not needlessly add entities to a theory. In this case, if we don't need God to account for observations, then a scientific theory should not include God. This doesn't mean that the theory says that God doesn't exist, but rather that God is not needed to explain the phenomenon that the theory tries to explain. I would contend that there is no difference in the observations that would be expected if God really created everything than there are if it's all a result of natural processes. If I am wrong, then please give a specific difference in what would be observed ONLY if God created everything, and not otherwise.


182 posted on 04/14/2005 5:43:07 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero

I think the best analysis here...is that its like going into a grocery store and buying materials for a cake...there are always the same basic 3 ingredients...cake mix, eggs, and water...and then there are the "others" which you mix in as well for the different taste.


309 posted on 04/15/2005 10:53:03 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero
No, I wasn't claiming that it was. What this article says could just as easily be interpreted one way as the other. For instance, if God were designing apes and men, it stands to reason that He would use many of the same materials.

Actually it makes perfect sense if you look at DNA and the genome like a computer program. Programmers reuse code all the time. No need to write code that draws a window everytime you write a new program, you just link to a library that already has that code, or you copy and paste code from one program to another.

Why wouldn't God reuse his own code?

368 posted on 05/03/2005 1:27:36 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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