Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
Natural Selection?
Actually, scientific principles are the what man uses to describe the way God established and runs the universe. God did not wait for scientific principles to create the universe, and He sure doesn't need them to sustain it.
Oh, please. This little game gets tiresome. Pointing out that humans design lab experiments says exactly nothing about the general ID assertion.
Moreover, assuming for argument's sake it did exist as alleged, and Cambrian strata held older forms, it still would not support macroevolution in absence of solid and numerous transitional records. And it would still fit very nicely into the ID interpretive model. :)
Anything would fit nicely into ID model though. That is why the ID model is junk. A model that fits anything is empty.
Now you're simply denying the problem. Seamlessly, you have slipped from pointing with pride to published accounts of the Cambrian strata to pretending that all such interpretations are really controversial and may be discarded at your convenience.
I laid it out already. It can't be a problem for evolution without it being a problem for creationism.
And it would still fit very nicely into the ID interpretive model. :)
Oh, you have a theory now? Would that be this one?
A good scientific theory like ID should be vague and ambiguous, and refuse to propose any specific details about mechanism or history. Some unspecified being "designed" something, somewhere, at some point in time, somehow, is a perfectly good explanation.The Quixotic Message.
Beat me to it.
And no creationist dares face the challenge.
Perhaps you haven't noticed how every new discovered is 'interpreted' by evols in such a way as to make it fit the theory of evolution. (Or perhaps you have noticed it and just haven't mentioned it.)
talking to yourself again?
:)
might be time to go for a walk
Not everything would fit evolution though. Rabbits in the cambrian would not fit evolution. Neither would half wolf-half bird fossils. That such examples have not been found is exactly why evolution is so strong a theory.
Give me just one fossil that wouldn't fit ID. Go on try and imagine just one fossil. I could go on all day listing fossils that would be incompatible with evolution. Can you name even one which would be incompatible with ID? I doubt it.
That more or less sums up what I said, but you seem to have missed it.
I was born an innocent baby.
Have you remained pure . . . or did you screw up somewhere along the way?
They'd make it fit somehow. They always do.
Give me just one fossil that wouldn't fit ID.
What's the point? I'm not arguing that your statement is wrong. I'm simply saying it cuts both ways.
We all believe what we choose to believe, and we (yes, even the much venerated scientific community) filters the evidence through those beliefs.
Well, again, I think it's fair to argue with his reasoning. I haven't read any of his work, so I really couldn't argue it one way or the other.
Has he written about evolution, or just about origin of life/matter/universe? And does he assume a different set of requirements for the first life form than what is generally accepted?
Apologies if you haven't read him, either ... I've read critiques both pro and con and found neither very satisfying. I find the idea of a statistical analysis very interesting, but it strikes me as an extraordinarily complex matter to apply statistics to the origins of life or the universe... too many unknowns, it seems to me, to be able to really determine an "impossibility" threshold in the first place. But that's just me talking.
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.
Well, then what is this physical process that acts on an organism that can explain the occurance or disappearance of traits that these other processes can not?
A rabbit in the cambrian would not fit evolution at all. There is no way of making it fit. The earliest mammals appear early triassic and are reptile-like, but not rabbits. Even when rabbits do appear they are not like modern rabbits. So to find a modern rabbit as far back as the cambrian would inexplainable via evolution. It simply is not possible for mammals to exist, let alone rabbits at a time when no land animals even existed.
Nothing like a rabbit in the cambrian has ever been found so when you say "they always do" what are you basing that on?
here is a list of more fossils that would totally not fit evolution:
-A dog fossil with rockets morphed into its legs.
| -A fossil shark with lasers attached |
| -A fossil crocodile with an outboard motor |
|
-A lion with wings of a bird |
| -A centaur |
| -A werewolf |
|
-A human fossil in the cambrian |
| -An elephant fossil in the cambrian |
| -Any mammal fossil in the cambrian |
| -or bird in the cambrian. As ridiculous as some of these are, they would all fit ID. None would fit evolution, no matter how hard anyone tried to make them. |
But it was a Scrappleface article.
per post 427 which has the link
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.