Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora
Computers can simulate Evolutionary Theory only because Intelligent software Designers create and modify code to do so.
On the other hand, computers can demonstrate just how flawed Evolutionary Theory is in practice simply by downloading the same file over the Internet thousands upon thousands of times.
Now scan those millions of copies of the downloaded program and run all of the versions whose code was "mutated" by the noisy download process.
And when one of those programs contains added functionality that was NOT written by the original software authors, call me because a miracle just happened. In reality, the mutated downloads won't function as well as the clean downloads no matter how many mutations and permutations you go through.
But that's just DNA coding reality. How can it compete with the religion of Evolution?!
Evolutionists who fear this resort- speed depending upon their confidence level - to mocking and insulting those opposing them. The interesting thing to notice is how quickly Christianity becomes the target.
Only a sincere desire to take back education from the Taliban(?) creationists, so that kids can grow up able to think rationally. Horrible thought, huh?
You should be careful with you references. Name a christian alive today who advocates mass murder. You should apologize for that irresponsible statement. However, if it were up to me, I'd take the gov't out of the education business altogether, and let the free market run the schools. Better, cheaper, and free from coersion too.
This remark I would agree with. Let the market decide, and your evolutionist "belief system" would have to compete on it's merits rather than the power of the state. In a free market, we would see who is forcing what on whom.
If you scroll back, what I said was that evolution was the only theory which explains the data [regarding proliferation of species]. I'm dimly -- oh so dimly -- aware that there are other theories around, but none which do the job of evolution, that is, explaining the fossil data, DNA data, and the proliferation of species in the world. The only competing "theories" propounded in these threads are (1) Genesis; and (2) flying saucer Johnny Appleseeds, a/k/a Intelligent Design. Neither of those is a scientific theory. If you have one, bring it on.
baa
You forgot to mention that evolution requires the bulk of all fossils to be intermediates, and that Darwinists are deluding themselves (there are other explainations) in the cases of the 200.
If you want an apology, I suggest you ask the person who made the statement in question. It wasn't me.
Evolution is silent on life's origins. But you knew that.
You must be kidding. Evolutionary Theory doesn't even explain the very first form of life, much less the entire fossil record. Other theories such as Complexity Theory and Intelligent Design explain the entire fossil record rather well, however, and both of those theories are backed by other, additional evidence such as the ability for Intelligent Designers to replicate and modify intelligent software, machines, et al.
You claimed that there was only one theory, that of Evolution (see above). You were woefully wrong. Come back to me after you've read Illy Prigogine and other recent Nobel Prize winners.
Well, there is. Assuming that Earth was once lifeless, and it now has life on it, somehow life emerged.
Or is this too complex for you to understand? Our scientists are working on the "how".
Creationists would have me believe that "Our Invisible Buddy who Lives in the Sky" flew down to an empty earth
6000 years ago and breathed life into dust. Then "OurInvisibleBuddy" planted all those fossils to confuse us.
That's patently incorrectly and woefully uninformed. In his book On Origin of Species, Charles Darwin says that God created the first form of life, and that life then evolved from that point.
That's clearly not being "silent" on the origin of life. Too bad you weren't aware of that fact...
That's not proof that life EVOLVED from inanimate matter. Sure, somehow life is on this planet, but whether it emerged, evolved, or was created here by an Intelligent Designer has not been proven.
To claim that the mere presence of life serves as proof of Evolution is to throw out the entire Scientific Principle in favor of pseudo-scientific-religious dogma.
As I said, you would be unable to respond to my challenge above and that would lead you to abandon this thread for less-educated and weaker debates.
Buh Bye.
Good luck fleeing from that challenge, as you are not up to the task...
I made a mistake in #213. Now do you ask "OurInvisibleBuddy" to give you a gold star?
You're right. Life did "spring" from non-life. You've saying that to be valid,
the ToE must address that. I'm saying that's wrong. But you knew that.
That is the real solution!
Yes, you did make a mistake. Not only were you wrong on that point but you were wrong in every instance of your support of the outdated Theory of Evolution.
From a scientific perspective, it is an as yet unsupported theory, yet other theories have some levels of support, much of it replicable in the laboratory. You went over the line in your support of the least supportable of theories. That's not what I'd call an educated move...
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.