Posted on 10/20/2009 9:02:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“I can’t imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.”
Are you being sarcastic, or sardonic, or whatever the proper term is? In my experience, GGG, like most young earth creationists, have no trouble at all using articles that back their creationist beliefs while ignoring the fact that the authors of the article in no way share their belief in a young earth (or creationism, for that matter). Not that that is necessarily a problem, just stating a fact.
(including GGG in the “to” list since it is considered bad form here to talk about someone else without pinging them on it, even if it is their own thread)
You are correct. I can't even speak one word of English.
“Surely it makes much more sense to say that four-winged dragonflies and two-winged flies were each designed to do what they do do, and what they do do, they do do well!”
(See, I was right about the Crap thing. You said DO DO twice.
What empirical evidence does the author cite to support this assertion?
Once again, the fact that they have survived as a species, for that long, and with the same basic form, (or model).
The 'experience' is that is has continually worked for, say, 250 million years. Time after time.
We observed that, and that, is the basis of empirical knowledge.
How does that support his assertion, and how can you test this supposed design?
You are right, I generally do flit in and flit out. I used to spend lots of time debating evos, including evo scientists, but I found that no matter how many times I demonstrated that Creation/ID is superior to Darwin’s fanciful creation myth, they clung to their evo-religion regardless. Indeed, I even used to set up debate threads, and ping all the evos to them. But alas, one by one they would all start dropping from the thread like flies, until it was just a bunch of Creationists and IDers talking to each other. So what’s the point? Besides, the articles and papers I post pretty much speak for themselves—and rarely does an evo come along with a comment that warrants any further elaboration on my part.
As for your comments about IDers and OECs. You will notice that I don’t post articles by OECs (proper), but I do post occasional articles and papers from an ID perspective. Can you guess why that is? You probably should’t bother, however, as I’m not sure I would tell you why, even if you guessed correctly.
All the best—GGG
No offense, but I don’t believe there is much in the way of anything to be achieved by debating between YECs and those who have a more empirical approach to the world. Our world views are just too far apart. The concept of Biblical inerrancy and a literal reading of the Bible just doesn’t make sense to me. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Keep posting, though - I find your posts interesting even if I don’t share your belief system.
To actually debate people you have to have a grasp of the subject you are debating. You obviously don’t. You yourself said you have no science background.
When asked for evidence you link to creationist magazines with no scientific proof to back them. Your lack of science education doesn’t allow you to realize the lack of any evidence for your point.
You then resort to name calling and attacking others, calling them atheists because they aren’t in lockstep with you.
You also post bible references (a religious document)when scientific documentation is asked for.
I believe that you think that the bible is the ultimate reference document on biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology and any other -ology out there.
Because you [ggg] never had a clue in the first place.
There is a valley near Anchorage, Alaska where the vegetables grow to ridiculous size during the summer months due to the Sun being up most of the time. I suppose if dragonflies lived in a totally oxygen saturated higher pressure flight regime, the deterministic DNA programming for growth might produce larger specimens than we see today. Or the sudden loss of the canopy could explain why creatures with expensive energy requirements in our current atmosphere went extinct?
By the way, large dragonflies were the hardest to catch, ranking up there with the elusive Zebra Swallowtail.
I can’t imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.
<><><><><><><<>
GGG routinely posts articles in which explicit statements about an old earth are made.
They are also, at least in his eyes, critical of some element of evolutionary theory (do I have that about right, GGG?), so much so that, again in GGG’s eyes, they invalidate evolutionary theory, thereby contributing to the foundering and sinking of the HMS Darwin (to use GGG’s colorful language).
Add to that, the belief espoused by some (I think you have given this one the thumbs up, GGG) on the various crevo threads, that a multi billion year old universe and a 6000 year old earth owe their existence to the same creation event.
Therefore, any article critical of any element of evolutionary theory can be used, because with the notion of above, the age of the universe is no longer an obstacle.
I confess I’m not nearly smart enough (’cuz I’m an evo-atheist, Nazi communist Christ denying monkey lover - who kicks small dogs as I can have no moral underpinnings given my secular humanism) to grasp the idea behind the multi billion year old universe and the 6000 year old earth emanating from the same creation event.
Hey, I resemble that remark...except need to add uncooth, void of civility, and of course, plain stupid.
Good post!
More related information is in Steve Jones’ book “Darwins Ghost.” To wit, from pages 130 and 131 ...
“As insects battle to improve a feeble design, evolution does its best. But that best is not very impressive. The eye of the dragonfly or the water-skater has triumphed, but only because all its competitors are worse. For sight, excellence is in the eye of the beholder.
In the context of evolution, perfection is not necessary. If the eye were only a hymn to the supreme powers of a diety called natural selection it would be no more persuasive as evidence than was William Paley’s celebrated watch as proof of the existence of God. His book multiplied examples of flawless design and, with no other idea of whence it came, turned to a Great Designer. Unfortunately for him, the song of the eye has many discordant notes. They show it to be not the work of some great composer, but of an insensible drudge: an instrument, like all others, buit by a tinkerer rather than a trained engineer.”
You’r part right. Biblical YECs for the most part merely point to Dr. Humphreys’ white hole cosmology that utilizes Einstein’s GR to show that it is possible to have a young earth, and distant stars that are millions or billions of years old, and yet both owe their existence to the exact same creation event. It has to do with gravitational time dilation, a bounded Universe with a center of mass, and our galaxy being at or near said center of mass. And, as it turns out, the cosmic evos are starting to admit (even if they are loath to admit it!), that it appears that we are at the center of something, such as a cosmic void, or even (Darwin forbid!) the center of the Universe. Of course, Dr. Humphreys has been writing books and papers making this very point for close to two decades.
As for posting ID articles, I disagree with (and try to avoid), ID articles that accept or push an old Earth. However, sometimes I will post an ID article or paper, even if it contains old Earth assumptions, if the paper has something profound to say about the argument from design, or otherwise falsifies some important aspect of materialist evolution.
==Once you disconnect from reality in one realm, you are free to disconnect in others as it fits your paradigm. It goes without saying that religion often plays a part in this type of thinking...
Look Who’s Irrational Now
“’What Americans Really Believe,’ a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
Interesting questions! I’d like to see what an enriched 02 atmosphere would do for insects, etc. Of course, adding C02 to the plant life at much higher percentages might be necessary too.
I often wondered what the long term effects of intense sunlight are on organisms versus a more cloudy atmosphere along with increased oxygen and C02.
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.