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 Darwins natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. Thats 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 ...
You’ll have to excuse the typos in that last post. I’m sharing the keyboard with a cat at the moment.
Me: Im of the opinion that theres room for everything and the science itself will survive a healthy debate.
CW: According to the Bible, the earth is flat. Let’s debate. Your turn.
______________________________________________________
You’re too helpless. You project, then distort and then whine about others distorting your views.
In short, you’re a complete waste of time.
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.
>>>>>>>> The only thing I can tell you is projecting doesn’t constitute debate!
Show me where I said I don’t go to cretionist websites.
>>>>>>>
I’ve read creationist websites. I’m not reading another one right now.
If they’re scientists, and we’re leaving science to the scientists their “dissent” is between them and the other scientists.
#1220
Perhaps my better response would have been...
“let me know when you’re ready”?
Well, let me know when you’re ready!
Again, when I refer you to scientists, and you say you’re not going to read it...
I really don’t know how else to help you!
Once again, one has to go to the experts in ID. It is not up to the laymen to 'see' what ID is but it is up to the experts to define it for us. The ID experts have defined ID and according to them, the ID probably is dead.
I see you are back here learning life experiences.
Cut and paste alert.
Not:
From their Evolution 101:
“The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Did you never hear of WWII? The Cold War?
From your link. Their is not “mechansim” for the beginning of life stated.
Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life but exactly how does it work?
Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:
Then you respect dummies that are twisting science. You are repeating the lies of the anti-evolutionists without doing your own research on evolution. Perhaps you should get your priorities right. Anyone that believes children are less important than bickering on an evolution thread here has lost it.
First, you have the description of what Behe laid out all wrong.
Second, since you have such great respect for Behe, do you also believe like him that God is dead and that should be taught to science students.
So, you are not really about debating all ideas. Thank you.
I have read your posts. That is why I suggested that you do some homework so we could discuss the issues.
I've noticed that. It's tiresome.
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 : )
Fascinating animation; the rotating image of the earth looks like a hampster wheel with a donkey doing the driving, trying to get away from the miniature poodle who has hold of the donkey’s tail while a beaver is desperately trying to overcome the force holding him in place so that he can bite the donkey in the middle of the back.
I have read your posts. That is why I suggested that you do some homework so we could discuss the issues.Aawwww quit yer whining.
Fascinating animation; the rotating image of the earth looks like a hampster wheel with a donkey doing the driving, trying to get away from the miniature poodle who has hold of the donkeys tail while a beaver is desperately trying to overcome the force holding him in place so that he can bite the donkey in the middle of the back.Uh, you over analyzed that a bit...
****See my Tagline****
Hello troll.
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.