Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora
This statement isn't true. I'm sorry that your personal incredulity
doesn't allow you to process mainstream scientific theories.
is that allowed?
Uh, Creationism is outlawed in the classroom. Time to return to our planet.
I'm glad you brought up this point. I wish to make it clear that my concern is with coercive religious extremists of ALL flavors. I find all of them to be dangerous and a threat to liberty.
In fact, other than the deity, the prophet, the scripture, and the language, I don't see any difference worthy of note between them.
Uh, it's illegal to teach Creationism in the classroom. Time for you to return to the earth's atmosphere as well.
An expansion of what I did say earlier:
The first self-replicator has to arise by purely random processes, yes. There is no process of variation and natural selection, since there is no replication. Once you do get to a self-replicting entity, even if it's a simple molecule, the game of evolution is on. We did at least one thread (with continuation) on the subject recently.
Abiogenesis and evolution are generally considered to be different subjects since you can't explain A with B and A is over once B is going. Abiogenesis is also a favorite hiding place of evolution-deniers since actual evidence of what happened back when is likely to be scarce for some time. But it's a dodge.
However life got started, it started close to 4 billion years ago. Since then, it has evolved quite a bit.
Nonsense! The Theory of Evolution is flatly contradicted by Complexity Theory, Chaos Theory, Intelligent Design, and a host of other scientific theories which have far more credible scientific evidence supporting them.
Ten years from now Evolutionary Theory will be so discredited by the mainstream that you won't touch it or give it the time of day.
So Darwinism is the best that you've got?! Ridiculous. Darwinism doesn't even explain the very FIRST step of the "evolutionary process."
My suggestion to you is to read Noble Prize winner Illya Prigone's "Order Out of Chaos" at once.
Best theory, indeed... Hurumph!
If your circular reasoning has convinced you that you evolved from lower life forms, then next time I go to the zoo and visit the primate exhibit, I'll give all of your relatives your regards.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:18-25
...there's a verse for you to meditate upon "brother".
baa
That's the same court system that's given you... Do your own research. I would suggest arn.org
How honest are you being here? If your objections to evolution are at bottom scientifically motivated, I'm Queen Victoria. People don't bend over backwards for nothing.
I see no conflict with dogs being descendent from a common ancestor of the wolf and co-existing with wolves. Likewise humans can co-exist with other species that descended from an earlier common ancestor.
"This statement isn't true. I'm sorry that your personal incredulity doesn't allow you to process mainstream scientific theories." - dbbeebs
Nonsense! Of course my statement above is true.
We started with a lifeless planet, yes or no?
How did we FIRST get life on that lifeless planet?
If one discounts Intelligent Design and insists upon Darwinism, then life MUST have first evolved from purely inanimate objects.
But hey, you claim that what I said isn't true, so why don't YOU explain where that first life evolved from if not from inanimate objects!
Oh yeah, that little challenge means that you will have to flee this debate because there is NO WAY that you can answer said task.
Buh bye.
God is not addressed one way or the other by the theory of evolution. Evolution is just a model describing the diversity of life. Did God have a hand in it? I have no way to ascertain that. That assumption then falls into the religious as apposed to the scientific venue. Now do I personally believe in God? Yes! Do I think he has an active role in evolution through out the ages? I have absolutely no idea. Should that be taught along side of the theory of evolution? No! It does not fall within the realm of science.
If a theory makes no prediction save "Evolution can never explain [your favorite complexity here]," how can it be said to have evidence supporting it?
"What is not sensed is non-sense."---David Hume.
As no one has come up with any empirical evidence of this "common ancestor" of apes and humans, any claim that such an ancestor existed is unproven, or, as the original Empircist put it: "Nonsense."
One cannot claim adherence to the empiricism of pure science, then posit a prior abstractions to "explain" what is presently apprehended by the senses. Be empiricists or be idealists. Make up your minds about what constitutes a true Philosophy of Science, but stop changing the rules all the time. Your "common ancestor" is as physically invisible as you claim God to be, yet you expect us to believe in one invisibility and reject the other on the basis that one of them, God, cannot be empirically verified. Well, the other, the "common ancestor" can't be empirically verified either.
When you guys come up with a consistent scientfic method, here's thirty five cents. Call me.
That's wild-eyed speculation. One could just as easily say that however automobiles got started, they started over a century ago and they have evolved quite a bit, but one would be completely wrong. The cars didn't evolve; their Designers changed them.
Likewise, the code re-use of DNA strongly suggests that life forms don't evolve into other life forms, but rather that the Designers of life forms (especially notable with artificial computer life and computer software viri) created new versions.
To disregard the precise mathematical code reuse of Base-4 DNA and speculate that species randomly morph into other species is hardly rooted in ANY proven scientific evidence or basis.
Just random changes that somehow (accidently ?) lead to improved (new) species .... or death.
According to evolutionary theory, the "species" CANNOT change itself, it just randomly mutates into something better.
There is no "Mother Nature" allowed, no design, allowed, nothing but random mutations. No species can change based on any amount of "want to" or "need to" change.
Make that "only theory." There is no other scientific model that rationally explains the data.
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.