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 ...
Just can’t keep your arrogant ASSumptions to yourself, can you? I’m not even certain where your ASSumptions are coming from, except from your presupposition that someone with a God centered viewpoint simply CAN’T be scientifically minded.
OTOH, Islam is a prime example of a worldview that rejects an orderly and discoverable universe.
Interesting that you totally neglect any mention of the Catholic “reformation” ...
What words did I add to any post? In my post I merely copied and pasted from posts 554 for valkyry1 and 559 from yours.
The great flood is an example of order? I think not.
Right. You excerpted my post to intentionaly misrepresent what I was posting. Thank you for your misrpresentation.
What period of time did the *Catholic “reformation”* occur in?
Is this a new public school revisionist history thing? It certainly wasn’t part of any history class I ever heard of and nothing about the Catholic “reformation” in history shows up.
I responded to only one item in his post and showed that in my post. You added his whole post and didn't show the actual post I made so as to misrepresent my post. This is additionally clarified by your use of "They" when I was not responding to "They" as was clearly articulated in my post but misrepresented by you in your post about me.
It was satire on your totally dismissing a major influence in European history.
What does that even mean? How do you measure "most" of science?
If God were not a God of order, then order would not exist.
Events resulting in disorder are no more an indication of God’s nature being disorderly, than randomness being built into a system by man indicates that the man who designed the system is random by nature.
I excerpted nothing.
Your post in it’s entirety.
To: valkyry1
Newts law of gravitational acceleration
has already been replaced ...
559 posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:59:13 AM by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I am not talking about events that results in disorder but an event which requires disorder in order to occur.
I didn’t dismiss the Protestant Reformation. It was key in the rise of science and knowledge in Europe. Anyone who denies that is dismissing a major influence in European History.
Correct. But that is NOT what you originally posted when you misrepresented me by excerpting my post.
What you said--"And if [the ToE is] not right, and not truth (as science is not about truth anyway), it might as well be in the *opinion* category cause that's about how reliable it is"--applies to every area of science. Pointing that out is not exaggeration, it's extrapolation.
They have? When?
The above excerpt from your post shows your deception. Notice that I used the singular 'has' while you used the plural 'they'.
As I explicitly stated, you dismissed the Catholic 'reformation'.
He is correct in what he says, historically most of science has been and will be shown to be wrong. Examples such as the Pythagorean theorem and Newts law of gravitational acceleration (on earth) are the exceptions that make the rule.
First of all, the Pythagorean theorem is a construct that does not yield accurate answer in the real space in which we live. Plane geometry is only as true as its axioms, and its axioms do not account for the curvature of the space we live in.
Newton's "laws" of gravity are obsolete.
This brings up an interesting observation on how science progresses. As a general rule, new theories do not invalidate old theories so much as they explain a greater range of observations. Pythagoras and Newton accurately describe things for a limited set of conditions, but have been replaced by broader generalizations.
In the case of evolution, Darwin started with Paley's observation that living things appear to be designed, and added an explanation of how they got that way. Any challenge to evolution will need to start with Darwin and add additional layers of explanation.
I did not excerpt anything you said when I copied and pasted your post.
So my mistake was not more clearly pointing out how you misrepresented him when you only posted part of his post.
You’re objecting to that.
I see.....
Perhaps you skipped class that week?
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.