Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
" You can't get life from non-life - and you can't get personality from non-personality."
<< biting tongue.
How do you know? Besides birds do migrate - is that abstract thought in a tiny little bird brain?
Thanks, I feel flattered ;-)
It's quite interesting how you speak of evolution as if it has some kind of intelligence or is some sort of creative force (a common phenomena amongst your brethren). You can build and test prototypes - evolution can do nothing of the sort.
Your assumption is that purely naturalistic evolution is true, and then you use it to differentiate intelligently designed items from biological items. I am saying that I cannot accept purely naturalistic evolution as an explanation of human biology because my perception of most things outside the realm of biology is that the more complex they are, the more intelligence was required for their design. It is difficult for me, absent overwhelming evidence, to accept an idea that runs counter to this trend.
Retarded people are still people.
You can build and test prototypes - evolution can do nothing of the sort.Species reproduce (building). If the new-born organism is suited to the environment it can survive to pass its genes to another generation (testing).
My previous post made no mention of anything except the retroactive application of statistics. If you cannot answer this directly that's fine, just admit that and we can move on. If you don't understand what I am saying then ask for clarification and I will try to better explain my point. But instead you are pretending that I have said more with respect to statistics here than I have in order to hide your lack of a rebuttal.
Any evidence to back this wild conspiracy theory?
If we teach creationism in school, should your conspiracy theory be given "equal time" with creation?
There is hardly a scientific consensus.
A 1996 Gallup Poll held that among scientists (across all fields) that the percentage of scientists who acknowledge evolution is in the high 90-percentage range. In the biological and earth sciences, this number is almost 100%. Looks like a pretty good consensus to me.
You argue that the case for common descent is hastily drawn from DNA evidence. I might give you that this is a hasty conclusion if this was the only evidence supporting the theory. When data from the fields of paleontology, biogeography, zoological morphology and genetics all lend credence to the same conclusion, though, as they do, your perspective seems to have want for explanation.
Many birds migrate, earthworms migrate, snakes migrate, monarchs migrate (as od other butterflies), many dragonflies migrate, zooplankton migrate etc.
"Know" to migrate is another matter.
Every reproductive act results in a prototype. Some do better than others.
But more to the point, you're the one who's making the positive claim that there must be something extra at work here in order to get from simple & concrete to complex & abstract thoughts. Yet we all go thru that mental growth as we age (i.e. from 4 to 12). So, is there some kind of supernatural intervention that occurs at some point in everyone's childhood? If so, then how do you explain severely retarded people, who never reach the capacity to think abstract thoughts? Did the angel in charge of imparting abstract thoughts pass them by?But they still can't handle abstractions. Somehow that ability, which every other person develops, escaped them. A naturalistic explanation is that there's something wrong with the wiring of their brains which prevented the emergent property of "abstraction" to emerge. The supernaturalistic explanation is - what? That the supernatural person in charge of injecting the supernatural substance called "abstraction" into our natural brains passed them by?Retarded people are still people.
"You can build and test prototypes - evolution can do nothing of the sort."I cannot believe such a smart person would make such an obviously false assertion.That is the defining characteristic of evolution. It vigorously tests the viability of any new arrangement of genes or any new allele (mutation). Those that pass, get to reproduce. Those that don't, don't pass on their genes.
Prove it!
You guys all take care now. Buh-bye.
Every hear of the 1987 ruling by the US Supreme Court - Edwards vs. Aguillard? I suggest you review it. It struck down a Louisiana law that required teaching of both evolution and creationist viewpoint side by side in public schools (sounds fair to me - let the kids decide). The court held that it failed the "Lemon test" which requires that a public religious activity is constitional only if (1)it has a predominately secular purpose (secular humanism is certainly secular but it promotes atheism!), (2)it neither inhibits nor advances religion, and (3) it creates no excessive entanglement between govt. and religion. Only problem is that the Lemon test has nothing to do with the Constitution - it is pure arbitrary law created by judges (who are not consitutionally allowed to make law). Once again, judges decide for the people regardless of what the people want. Judges make law - oligarchs in black robes.
Also, I am watching the cases in Kansas and PA - the evolutionists are apoloplectic that the boards in some communities are starting to question evolution. They also have the mainstream media on their side. Even stating that evolution is just a theory and not fact cannot be allowed! The sacred theory must be protected and enforced at all costs - and we see the atheists circling the wagons in these communities. However, the PEOPLE will ultimately decide what is taught in their schools (not a federal judge), that is, if there is anything remaining of this dying republic.
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.