The Manticore!
Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
The Manticore!
Piltdown Man.
The organism itself is the physical process. The biological processes of the organism determines how able that organism is at reproduction.
The biological processes of the organism are determined by its traits. Traits that hinder the organisms ability to replicate will tend to not be passed on and will reduce in number. Traits that aid the organisms ability to replicate will end up being present in more organisms.
Never mind that one, anyway!
Evolution would predict that the Manticore is impossible. Can ID do that?
From the site:
Topsel gives no indication that he considers the Manticore to be an imaginary beast, which is hard to explain, given his reticence about some other fantastical creatures. ‘This beast or rather Monster... is bred among the Indians, having a treble row of teeth beneath and above, whose greatness, roughness, and feet are like a Lyons, his face and ears unto like a mans; his eyes gray, his colour red, his tail like the tail of a Scorpion, of the earth, armed with a sting, casting forth sharp pointed quils’The Manticore, it is well known, has a fondness of human flesh, and Topsel claims that ‘although India be full of divers ravening Beasts, yet none of them are titled with a title of Anthropophagi, that is to say Man-eaters: except only this Mantichora’. His commitment to the idea that the Manticore is real is evident when he claims that ‘When the Indians take a Whelp of this Beast, they all to bruise the Buttocks and tail thereof, that so it may never be fit to bring sharp quils, afterwards it is tamed without peril.’
Looks intelligently designed to me.
" Have you remained pure . . . or did you screw up somewhere along the way?"
As I grew up I had the ability to make increasingly moral choices. Some were good, others not so much. I do not claim that I am perfect, only that when I was born I didn't have the capacity to make moral choices; I was innocent, as are all babies when they are born.
Your outlook re Elsie's post 395 disturbs me.
Would you also post "tongue in cheek" that you had caused someone to lose their faith?
Especially if the person referenced has said that he had lost his faith as a result of your actions (at least partially)?
It doesn't square with the rest of your post expressing warm concern for mine. Which, by the way I appreciate.
placemarker
Natural selection explains adaptation to a specific environment better than any of the effects you cited. It is the aggregate response of a species to the stimuli of its environment and the species' adaptation to it.
Species don't exhibit responses, individuals do...just as populations don't have physical traits, individuals do.
What you're essentialy promoting here is psychology, and psychology is not a science.
If natural selection can not explain physical changes within an organism, that are't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity, then it has no business being in a scientific theory.
What is so hard to understand about that.
I'll tell, you guys have worn me out. Why is it so hard to answer a simple question about a mechanism, that supposedly is an observabble fact of nature.
I see what you mean. Thanks.
The biological processes of the organism are determined by its traits. Traits that hinder the organisms ability to replicate will tend to not be passed on and will reduce in number. Traits that aid the organisms ability to replicate will end up being present in more organisms.
...yet more nonsense.
Time to go back to lurker mode, and also spend more time with my Lowden. This is just a waste of time.
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.
You've the least little bit of wiggle room here, if you want to bargain like a shyster. The professor did say that he believes origins can be explained without reference to 'divine intervention' but he did not explicitly endorse evolution, so maybe he thinks there is a "third way."
First again, I dont think what Elsie did was with malice so of course I would have no trouble using tongue in cheek humor. Each of us has different personalities. People are different, Christians are different. I especially will give my Christians friends the needle by stating...I better not listen to this music around you..I'd hate for you to lose your faith or stumble.
They understand it and they "get it".
I certainly could be in the same positition as Elsie...as someone being blamed for others loss of faith. Thats their perception then and it would be difficult to defend myself from it. I dont believe the premise and such dont believe his "blaming" is just.
Daily around here I may get insulted and even so much so that I lose all faith in humanity.
Should I moan, groan, whimper and cry each day blaming people for making me lose my faith in humanity.
Of course not, its silly...and so is this blame game narby and others have with Elsie.
Anyone in a similar position (who loses their faith) did not lose their faith becuase of a person...theyve decided to walk away from the Lord by their own choosing. Anyone can, we all have a free will. When you post a picture of Elsie twisting the arm of narby forcing him to sign a Christianity release card...well then I may get upset. It depends on how nice narby was to me that week. (joke, joke, joke)
And the mistake you are making is assuming you know what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. Lots of poeple that believe in God understand science. It's just the whacko creos that are lost.
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.