Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Not so:
The Earth rotates... 360 Degrees per day, In 8.3 seconds it takes sunlight to get here, the Earth rotates 0.034583333 Degrees. |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now using MINUTES it makes more sense mathmatically!
According to evolution.berkeley.edu:.....
Hmmmm, interesting situation here.
Here we have a university which has PhD’s and scientists on staff, which states that origins ARE part of the ToE.
And here we have an internet forum which has a bunch of evo hobbyists who on the whole tend to not even have a science degree when they even admit to it, who say it’s not.
Now if there’s supposed to be consensus on the ToE amongst scientists, and the scientists are at the university and not on the internet forum, guess who I’m going to believe concerning whether origins are a part of the ToE or not.
It sure is strange that LIGHT is the reference for all our measurements!
Ok...
Well, because right now we're doing a stationary binary model with a single body rotation.
No, you are the one that said that you didn't know how to model the two stationary bodies with one rotating. However you did say that if the Sun were orbiting the Earth then it would have a 2.1 degree lag. Show that.
You will find there is no difference in the two models : )
Seems a stretch to me.
“uncovered thy father’s nakedness” is also what is described as to why one shouldn’t marry one’s ex step mother(s). Lev 18:8
Bingo.
Which begs the question, what happened to the argument that “ID is merely harping and criticizing ToE offering nothing more”, when NOW, darwinism/ToE doesn’t even so much as even address origins?
Can’t have it both ways!
If I’m not proposing any theories, what is it I’m supposed to be providing evidence of?
>>>>> Huh?
If they’ve got a theory, I’d like to see the evidence.
>>>> I thought you just said it’s indeed theory, and therefore needn’t require “evidence”...as theory is just that, “theory” and not fact. Theory advances, well THEORY, therefore what evidence are you talking about?
Do I have to have a competing theory before they’ll show it to me?
>>>>>> A better question would be, since so many darwinists keep parroting that ToE doesn’t address origins, then why do they get into such a snit every time ID DOES address origins?
Also, everytime someone shows it to you, you make comments like “Well, I don’t go to creation sites...but I’m sure they’re nice people”!
A theory is well supported by evidence.
If your going to try to speak the language at least learn the terms.
If you believe ID then you believe that God is dead.
And just how is that required of someone that believes that aspects of the universe are better explained as being the product of intelligence than random chance?
(you know kind of like showing support of the troops is by undermining their mission).
ToE does not address origins.
So what’s your hangup again when ID DOES?
If you believe ID then you believe that God is dead.
And just how is that required of someone that believes that aspects of the universe are better explained as being the product of intelligence than random chance?
(you know kind of like showing support of the troops is by undermining their mission).
LOL I don't even know where to begin :(
First off the Sun is orbiting the Milky way at about 150 miles per second ( something like half a million miles an hour) So the Sun is moving fast : ) Second the earths rotation that you consider so slow is equivalent to the Sun rotating the Earth in a single day! That would be fast. Isn't this mixing of coordinate systems fun:)
I think there is a reason that you refuse to answer yes or no, and it is the same reason you cannot provide scientific documents backing up your claim - because you're wrong and not honest enough to admit it. What else can I think?
Maybe that you have failed to explicitly frame your question? Since you are insisting on a yes or no answer, I am insisting that you properly define the question. Is that too much to ask?
I have no doubt that this is why science in the classroom today is in such shambles - crazy unsubstantiated ideas are taught and noone is allowed to ask -- or answer -- tough questions, because if they did, the whole evolutionary priesthood would come crashing down.
And this from someone who doesn't think the Sun is moving very fast : )
Just went and checked the site for myself, and you are quite correct...the Berkeley branch of the Temple of Darwin is using our tax dollars to declare the following:
“...life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:”
Then the following major subheadings are listed:
1. Simple organic molecules were formed.
2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
3. Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
4. Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.
5. Multicellularity evolved.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_04
What does that mean to you? And can you explain that in a comprehensible manner? That should be easy with your superior education : )
But if instead the earth was just turning at the rate of one turn per 24 hours then the suns apparent position will only be lagged less then an arcsecond due to Stellar Aberration as a result of the earth's surface speed at the equator of about a thousand miles an hour.
Really? What does Stellar Aberration have to do with it? You don't really know what Stellar Aberration is do you?
A Scientific idea without supporting evidence is called a hypothesis.
A theory is well supported by evidence.
If your going to try to speak the language at least learn the terms.
I know the terms, the problem is when the godless demand that theory be treated as fact time and time again.
Well except when it’s evo...well THEN it’s treated as theory. Of course.
For that matter show me where only the godless scientists know the definition of science and are the appointed gatekeepers of accepted “theory”.
They do say that, of course. From TalkOrigins, as pro-evolution a source as you could ask for: “Compared to science of evolution, the science of abiogenesis (origin of life) is still seriously underdeveloped in its explanatory power, despite the recent progress.”
The same page links to an article in a biology journal that says: “Beginning with a single cell, Darwinian evolution provides a simple, robust, and powerful algorithm for deriving all the astonishing richness of life, from bacteria to brains. Natural selection and other evolutionary forces, acting on surplus populations of replicating cells and multicellular organisms, lead inevitably to evolution and adaptation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Inevitably.....???????
And we’re just supposed to sit around and wait, metmom!
How could you NOT be happy metmom?
GOOD GRIEF!
Talk about your programmed cultists that have an “answer” for everything!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Give biologists a cell, and they’ll give you the world. But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?
The short answer is that they can’t, yet.”
Any attempt to return to science is resisted.
With the current Goreian thinking over just WHAT ‘causes’ Global Warming®, cell phone brain cancer, plastic in baby bottles causing all of your grandchildren to be born naked and cold fusion vs confusion - there’s no wonder!!
EXACTLY...we have one darwinist that exclaims we can’t believe in ID because God is dead...
but that’s all about the SCIENCE don’t ya know!
If these angry at God liberals would spend 1/100th the energy on ensuring science was uncorrupted by the likes of the algoreacle cult and the like, as they do on their incessant God-hate, science would be SOOOO much better off!
Show me where I said that.
>>>>>> A better question would be, since so many darwinists keep parroting that ToE doesn’t address origins, then why do they get into such a snit every time ID DOES address origins?
I'm not "so many Darwininsts", and it's not a better question. You keep arguing about question. You keep arguing about "Darwinists". It looks like when you sit down at that keyboard to argue crationism vs. evolut8ion you assume your "opponent" collectively and monolithically. As far as you're concerned the person sitting at the other keyboard might as well be Richard Dawkins, and will get treated accordingly.
Also, everytime someone shows it to you, you make comments like “Well, I don’t go to creation sites...but I’m sure they’re nice people”!
Show me where I said I don't go to cretionist websites.
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.