Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong ^

Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer

What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: darwin; epigenetics; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; lamarck; lysenko; naturalselection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 861-871 next last
To: kosta50; spunkets; Alamo-Girl; shibumi; Quix; metmom; wmfights; P-Marlowe; xzins; allmendream; ...
Yes, but they will say that with God everything is possible

They may say so. Still, not everything is "art."

801 posted on 04/01/2010 12:51:57 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Sure you do. You just label it something *scientific* sounding to give it an air of respectability so you can mock anyone who doesn’t accept your speculations.


802 posted on 04/01/2010 12:52:26 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: metmom; spunkets; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; kosta50; shibumi; Quix; wmfights; xzins
That's a good start. It helps to know what the theory is before you can be expected to refute it

What are you going to refute ti with? An a priori belief? LOL!

This nonsense of demanding refutation without telling you what it is

Again, why don't you tell me what is God?

803 posted on 04/01/2010 12:53:23 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; spunkets; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; MHGinTN; Quix; shibumi; metmom; wmfights; xzins
But man (the artifact) is not the measure of God (the artist).

Then why use him as an example?

804 posted on 04/01/2010 12:55:55 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; P-Marlowe; spunkets; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; shibumi; Quix; wmfights; xzins

Avoiding the subject isn’t going to make us forget that evos haven’t answered P-Marlowe’s question yet.

So, I’ll copy and paste it here.......

“What is the current prevailing “scientific theory” for the origin of nature? “


805 posted on 04/01/2010 12:56:40 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: spunkets; Alamo-Girl; kosta50; shibumi; Quix; metmom; wmfights; P-Marlowe; xzins; allmendream
I did. Conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy tells me nothing about the cause of energy.

But you retreat behind the "matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed" rule. Which in this context obviates the problem of causation by fiat.

I have no problem with this rule — provided we recognize that it pertains only to the natural world.

806 posted on 04/01/2010 12:57:50 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Then why use him as an example?

I didn't. Nor would I. :^)

807 posted on 04/01/2010 12:58:46 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: metmom; spunkets
A phase change from vacuum? That means nothing turned into something?

So vacuum is "nothing" but space and time are "something?" That's rich...

808 posted on 04/01/2010 12:59:35 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom; Alamo-Girl; Quix; spunkets; shibumi; wmfights; P-Marlowe; xzins; allmendream; ...
Again, why don't you tell me what is God?

My life. My reason.

Any questions????

809 posted on 04/01/2010 1:01:35 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: metmom; P-Marlowe; spunkets; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; shibumi; Quix; wmfights; xzins
Avoiding the subject isn’t going to make us forget that evos haven’t answered P-Marlowe’s question yet

My question is older: what is God?

810 posted on 04/01/2010 1:03:45 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Any questions????

No, just prove it.

811 posted on 04/01/2010 1:04:53 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; spunkets; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; shibumi; Quix; wmfights; P-Marlowe; xzins
What are you going to refute ti with? An a priori belief? LOL!

A priori belief? You mean like materialistic naturalism that scientists demand must be adhered to in order to do scientific research?

Scientists have never proved that the universe came into existence without intelligent intervention. They assume the conclusion.

And they have also constantly done what I pointed out earlier to shibumi, that is demand evidence for a creator and then reject everything that creationists bring to the table as not *real* evidence.

They have set up demands that are impossible to meet and then laugh and mock that creationists have nothing to support themselves but *belief* or *faith* or whatever they want to label it.

And yet they won't tell us what evidence evos WILL accept that would meet their standards as to whether it's evidence or not.

So while evos claim *Ha, ha, you can't prove it*, creationists say that they can but you won't accept it. Your unwillingness to accept the evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist or doesn't support the creationist point.

812 posted on 04/01/2010 1:05:52 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

What He says.

I AM that I AM.

What is singularity?


813 posted on 04/01/2010 1:06:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
No, just prove it.

Prove WHAT???

Please clue me into what, exactly, you want me to "prove."

814 posted on 04/01/2010 1:42:13 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom; spunkets; P-Marlowe

//That doesn’t mean that if we imagine pink unicorns on Jupiter they must exist//

You have just proven yet once again that the evolutionist has no answer or argument otherwise you would not have to resort to such analogies.


815 posted on 04/01/2010 1:43:43 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom; betty boop; shibumi; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; xzins
//why don't you tell me what is God//

It appears as you are trying to put people in a box with your questions, another evo tactic.

What you and other evos actuality accomplish is demonstrating that they have never given any deep thought to ‘what God is’ or you would understand that the creator is beyond all concepts. All that man can do is glimpse various aspects.

For a start take a look at a small amount of sand, there will be easily 30 or 40 thousand grains there at least. Then try to imagine how many grains of sand there are on the entire earth. Now expand that vision into each grain of sand as a star, then an entire galaxy, and then leap to each grain of sand represents an entire universe or creation— each with its own physical laws infinity eternity beginning and end. Now all of this is in his vision at once but he is beyond it and yet his consciousness is present all the time in every part down to the smallest sub atomic particle ad infinitum.

Without god-consciousness there is no universe, no reality.

Man nor science can ever boil the creator down into an equation or something in a test-tube

The evolutionist, rather than mocking and ridiculing the truth in the great works, would do well to mediate on them.

//////////////

Deuteronomy 32:6
Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?

Proverbs 14:8 (New International Version)

8 The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways,
but the folly of fools is deception.

Proverbs 1:22

22 “How long will you simple ones [a] love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?

816 posted on 04/01/2010 2:26:28 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Alamo-Girl; Quix; spunkets; kosta50; shibumi; MHGinTN; wmfights; P-Marlowe; xzins; ...
A priori belief? You mean like materialistic naturalism that scientists demand must be adhered to in order to do scientific research?

Excellent observation, dear metmom; and so just, so true.

It's worth noting that materialistic naturalism bans final causes in principle. Since Sir Francis Bacon, any and all "subjective elements" must be removed from the scientific method, in order to secure "objectivity."

Yet to ban final causes enormously complicates the problem of explaining biological function, among other noteworthy things in the natural universe.

To put it crudely, a biological function seems to "know" its maximally desirable endstate before its supervening organism "knows" it has the need to reach it — in order to maintain biological viability, metabolism, physical well-being, etc. and so forth.

One could say that in a certain way, biological function is programmed — that is, not a spontaneous, emergent production of physical processes which can only describe what is happening in an immediate instance, or moment in time.

Final cause supervenes time itself in this sense.

To put this into perspective, here is Aristotle on final cause:

The final cause is an end which is not for the sake of anything else, but for the sake of which everything [else] is. So if there is to be a last term of this kind, the process will not be infinite; and if there is no such term there will be no final cause. Those who maintain an infinite series do not realize that they are destroying the very nature of the Good, although no one would try to do anything if he were not likely to reach some limit (peras); nor would there be reason in the world (nous), for the reasonable man always acts for the sake of an end — which is a limit. — Metaphysics. Book 12, Section 7 IIRC. E. Voegelin, tr.

Just love that guy, Aristotle: He is always trying to establish relations between the world of common human experience, and the world of the mind.

Our modern-day ideologues do not trouble themselves very much over problems like this. They simply dismiss them — by fiat.

817 posted on 04/01/2010 2:26:31 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1; Alamo-Girl; Quix; spunkets; kosta50; shibumi; MHGinTN; wmfights; P-Marlowe; xzins; ...
What you and other evos actuality accomplish is demonstrating that they have never given any deep thought to ‘what God is’ or you would understand that the creator is beyond all concepts. All that man can do is glimpse various aspects.

Oh, so beautifully said, valkyrie1!

Thank you ever so much for your truthful witness/testimony.

818 posted on 04/01/2010 2:31:05 PM PDT by betty boop (The personal is not the public's business. See: the Ninth Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It's worth noting that materialistic naturalism bans final causes in principle. Since Sir Francis Bacon, any and all "subjective elements" must be removed from the scientific method, in order to secure "objectivity."

Which is not truly objective since nothing in this universe can be. To be truly objective, one needs to be totally outside the system. An observer inside the system can never be truly objective and if they claim they are, that's a subjective judgment in and of itself, so right away disproves the alleged objectivity of the person claiming it.

819 posted on 04/01/2010 3:03:19 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; xzins; valkyry1
"...why don't you tell me what is God..."

One addendum - In addition to the vastness imaged in valkyry1's post, He is also the tiny voice in the back of your head that forces you to ask the question in the first place, while never being fully satisfied with our human attempts to give you the answer.


820 posted on 04/01/2010 3:13:25 PM PDT by shibumi (FReepMail me to get on the "Hippo Attack" ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 861-871 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson