Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
I'll say... OH you mean the article, not evolution.
Psst... I'm BAAAACK.
;-)
(no hard feelings I hope...)
Everything in the laboratory is designed by an intelligent being. I'd say that qualifies. The whole process of experimentation, invention, art, construction, etc. is ID. It's so prevalent that you can't see the forest for the trees.
You guys have reached the zenith of your intellectual powers. You are on a roll.
Sorry- you were misquoted. The above was your quote.
Art went herbiverous fathom.
The effect that traits that aid an organism to better reproduce will tend to be fixed in the population, while those that hinder reproduction will tend to be lost.
This isn't explained by mutation - it would still occur in absense of mutation.
This isn't explained by drift - it would still occur in absense of drift.
This isn't explained by recombination - it would still occur in absense of recombination.
This isn't explained by heredity. Heredity is needed for natural selection to work, but it isn't the only thing that is needed.
anatomical cheese hmm. possibly.
When are you people going to start listening to reason and realize that evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist. I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. As far as that goes Darwin himself was a Christian.
Have you ever stopped to consider that God chooses to run the daily events of the entire universe according to scientific principles. Even the miracle of birth is strictly a scientific miracle. There's not one step in the process that is supernatural.
So why is it that you don't give your God credit for having the ability to do the whole job in a scientific fashion. Instead you seem to insist that that would have been just too tough for even God and imagine that he had to resort to some sort of magic or supernatural processes to get the ball rolling.
Thus, when woodb01 posts this:
Hitler's National SOCIALIST "uber-man" or Aryans, or the "super race" are all based on crazy notions of natural selection. The National SOCIALISTS determined that Jews, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, etc., weren't as "valuable" as the rest of society and exercised their "natural selection" to exterminate them. Abortion supporters do the same thing today, babies are "inconvenient" and some of them may have gestational diseases so it warrants "natural selection" to "terminate them" because they are the weak and defenseless in society. The law of the jungle, the "me" law that says if I want it, I can do anything I want to get it and no artificial moral construction is going to stop me!
... it's nothing more than an attempt to discredit a scientific theory by demonstrating that it can be misused for terrible ends. This argument from adverse consequences is a fallacy and can be compared to an attempt to discredit Christianity by pointing to the Inquisition.
Curiously, though, it also confuses "natural selection" with the Nazis' planned extermination program. Rationally, this should is an example of intelligent design, although I hate, even as an in this example, applying the term "intelligent," to the Holocaust. It was done by design, though. "Malevolent Design" would be more like it. The above abortion argument is more of the same.
"Wells isn't the first to recognize that the Cambrian explosion counts as evidence against evolution. Even Richard Dawkins admits, "It is as though they [Cambrian explosion fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). These sorts of evidences do indeed pose a major challenge to Darwinian evolution, as the origin of these most recognizable body plans and body parts must take place in just a few million years, and there are no fossils documenting these transitions. This compresses the origin of a very large portion of the genetic diversity ever to have existed on earth into an evolutionary instant, and the lack of transitional forms begs the question if common descent through natural selection had anything to do with this at all. Valentine and Erwin (referenced above) see typical microevolutionary processes as "implausible" to explain all of this. If this doesn't fly in the face of evolutionary predictions, what does? Regardless of what appears later in the fossil record, the bottom line is that almost all phyla appear in the Cambrian without any previous animal fossils to account for their supposed evolutionary origin. There may be no "lions, tigers, or bears" in the Cambrian (oh my?), but the fact is that when other groups appear in the fossil record, again we often see an "explosion". Paleontologists have called the origin of mammals (with few plausible intermediate fossils) an explosion, for birds there's a bird explosion, and there's even a plant explosion."
It's really not that hard.
Certain things found at certain places at certain times are designed.
Therefore, everything everyplace throughout time was designed.
It wouldn't do to post a rebuttal without someone posting the point being rebutted in response, would it?
Are you referring the inclusion of the following in the midst of the usual rant which omits all the facts that falsify it?
There may be no "lions, tigers, or bears" in the Cambrian (oh my?)...There may be none? Is he not sure? And where O where does this inquiring mind inquire why not? Where O where does this inquiring mind attempt to fit the lack of modern life in the Cambrian into creationism?
They don't do that. Your offered example isn't one, and how did that happen? Anyway, there aren't any. There are no creationists wondering WHY there are no lions and tigers and bears "Oh my!" in the Cambrian. There are no inquiring creationist minds. And there is no theory to fit facts into anyway. At least, there none that wasn't falsified by about 1831, well before Darwin published, when Adam Sedgwick admitted he couldn't find one great worldwide flood anywhere in the geologic column.
So the only questions creationists have are the ones fed to them by pamphlets. They parrot them, ignore the answers, and show up back again dumb as a stump the next day. This is the "real" science. It will teach us much.
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.