Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Ooops!
Was I sleeping thru THIS class?
Because it vilifies evolution, and allows eleni121 to feel good about ignoring the truth in it.
Course, you knew that.
Both Darwin and Marx were British intellectuals in about the same era, and if they did have any connection, so what? Their respective theories are completly irrelevant to each other.
I can sure agree with this!
In the Land of the Blind;
the One-eyed Man is KING!
Obviously.
"500 million years.....I didn't know you could live that long. Maybe I'll have to sign on with your deity.
If I understand post #1266 correctly you were trying to say that abiogenesis was highly improbable and has not been observed. You then proposed an artificial limit of 100 years on it. I changed your limit to one closer to what abiogenesis proposes. Your limit of just one life time is silly on the face of it. Man does not just record his own observations but uses observations of those that go before him. We have not redone all of Descartes' work, or Pascal's or Kepler's or Galileo's or Newton's or even Einstein's work. We pick up on their work and expand upon it.
One really nice thing about creating a strawman of a concept is that it becomes easier to make it look silly. So far this is all you've have done.
"Observable time says, "No way." Experiments say, "no way."
Observable time has no bearing on the validity of abiogenesis. (or any other science) No one ever stated it would happen in one life time. No one ever thought it would.
It sounds like you are saying that there is some time limit or maximum number of tries for experiments. Is this indeed what you are saying?
"But, just cause I'm a really, really nice guy, I'll give you the 500 million and raise you 6.5 billion more. The inanimate stuff in your test tube will always be inanimate stuf. "
This may be true, but this is not what the original proposal was. You said any objects in any conditions. This was an attempt by you to narrow the possibilities down and increase the likelyhood of those calculations of yours.
Unless you are prescient, I can't see why your last comment has any validity.
This is also not an accurate experiment. The number of experiments available to the prebiotic Earth is an enormous number. The experiments done by the prebiotic Earth using simple chemical interaction and the rules of chemical bonding are not random in any sense and would be carried on trillions of trillions of times concurrently and over time.
Add those constraints into your calculations and redo them.
I can make it my concern.
This is, after all, an OPEN forum.
Some of my fellow congregants are doing that very thing, smarty pants. Though voluntarily, not mandated.
Question: How do know I'm NOT 'black' or 'hispanic'???
Perhaps a little RACSIM showing?
OOOoooooh!
NOW you are DAMNED as well!
As a matter of fact they do. All of us originated in Africa and from a group that later went through a bottleneck in Asia. This post of yours sounds incredibly bigoted. I hope I am just misinterpreting it.
This is not true for certain Chicago ex-smokers.
Darwin did not deny divine creation. He was unsure of how life started.
If you check other threads you will find posts by both creationists and 'evos' that claim Darwin was a Christian throughout his life.
Might as well clear THIS up!!!
Regarding this interjection, Martin Gardner writes:
"Darwin himself, as a young biologist aboard H.M.S. Beagle, was so thoroughly orthodox that the ship's officers laughed at his propensity for quoting Scripture. Then 'disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate,' he recalled, 'but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.' The phrase 'by the creator,' in the final sentence of the selection chosen here, did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics. Darwin later wrote, 'I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process." [stress added] (Gardner, 1984)
The reason they deny it could ever exist is because there is no scientific evidence.
I doubt if he's that subtle.
Thing is, they don't want to turn 'ID' into a branch of science; they want, rather, to turn science into a branch of theology.
Come on now...you are saying that it (abiogenesis) happened at one point in time, aren't you....that it DID happen?
Is this not what I said?
If you are correct, and I tend to think you are, he's just tarnished the image of all other evos.
No. They are are prone to rationalization as any of us are. The dots don't connect themselves.
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.