Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Plants "eat" minerals all the time, as do certain microscopic critters. Hell, there are whole ecosystems based upon the hot chemical effluvium spewing from deep-ocean vents -- hot effluvium that is completely inorganic in origin. Methinks you are completely out of your depth here.
Hey! That's my hypothesis! Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prove it or even test for it. Oh well ...
While I appreciate the glib, Panglossian irony, elements of this statement work just fine for me.
While not exactly clockwork, the natural Universe does appear to run in a ratherly orderly fashion. Splashes of complexity, uncertainty, imperfection, and chaos keep things interesting.
If the Universe is 16 billion years old, what's that to God?
I don't think God needs to intervene in the ongoing material affairs of the Universe to keep things going, so I'll go along with the Big Bang being "perfect enough."
The ongoing spiritual affairs of man are another matter, but that shouldn't intrude much on a properly agnostic science.
God did what? Create micro-organisms some 3.5 billion years ago?
The bad news is that the more I argue with creationists, the more atheist I get. It's very disillusioning in that area, although there's enough to enjoy overall that I make a hobby of it.
This is one of the really horrible side-effects of creationism. It gives all religion a bad name. It gives conservatism a bad name. It gives Republicans a bad name. The media loves to get hold of someone like ... well, we've got a dozen or so I could name, and put them up as a talking head as a "typical" respresentative of the conservative viewpoint. It's the very worst thing we've got, and it holds the conservative and Republican movements back. No sane person wants to join a movement that seems to be loaded with creationists, and that's the way the media like it. If only we could persuade the creationists to become democrats ...
(I've given up meat and alcohol for Lent, and I'm fasting, so occasionally I get a little addle brained)
Remember the Scopes trial, the creationists were Dims then, fighting off atheistic yankee nonsense.
Hows about: Natural selection as tautology ; Evolution is just a theory. ; Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.
I couldn't not find the above at the AIG site you had prviously provided a link to, and was wondering if you could provide a specific URL to the above.
I've never heard the first mistake you mention, but I have heard creationists use the second mistake, and the third, creationists believe in micro but not macroevolution, I thought was true but here you're saying AIG is calling it a mistake...
As a fence sitter, I would greatly appreciate it.
Yes. Southern democrats. Those days are mostly gone.
Thanks!
I don't follow these evo vs creation threads and I have not read much of this one, but just let me say you are bang-on about the difficulties of "formulating a non-God created hypothesis for life."
Science will never grasp creation.
JWinNC
Totally. It's a blot on Christianity. It's a blot on everything that harbors it.
I offer this as further evidence for my hypothesis that more than one person is using the G3K screen name on FR. This particular incarnation of G3K lacks the accusatory inclinations of his predecessor, though in all other ways they are indistinguishable.
Either that, or his "Slime" subroutine has been temporarily disabled.
Someone else assumed ---"I know that the pre-biotic soup, if it ever existed, is a problem for your belief system, " to which I answered "..It isn't. I just don't believe there is evidence of pre-biotic soup.". This infers some of what I believe--
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
A pre-biotic soup fits right in with that, however I don't believe that there is evidence for that condition. However, God made the waters produce certain types of life. Is there any evidence that the waters did not produce life?
That implies an open mind, most of us apparently don't have such one way or another. The open mind also doesn't imply open mindedness to all topics. But if the question that you are open to is whether Darwinian evolution explains life please peruse the following and seek other verification of the opinions expressed in them---
B3: Extrapolating From Small Changes
TOWARDS A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION
A 21st Century View of evolution
Read those and draw your own conclusions. The Darwinians may provide other input, by all means read them, but be sure to check the primacy of the link and the date on the information. The same goes for the links I have provided. Good luck.
I have not said any of the above. I have said that many of things you evolutionists do say are tautologies. A good example of which is your ridiculous statement about mammary glands and ears which are a tautology and prove nothing. Only facts are evidence, suppositions are not facts.
As usual, when shown to be wrong, you resort to semantics. Pasteur proved that life omly comes from other life. That is the only scientific proof relating to the matter of abiogenesis.
You said in#517:
"If you see a planet full of life, such as the Earth, you can -- quite reasonably, based on our knowledge from chemistry and biology -- suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup."
By your own terms therefore, abiogenesis is nonsense.
And that's what I said a sentence after the one which you willfully took out of context. I said (in#635):
The only exception to this is plants which either through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis can create their own nourishment from sunlight and chemicals. .
You should be ashamed of yourself.
And the above is the reason why abiogenesis is impossible and none of you evolutionists can show any alternative to it.
I asked in post #85 or so for proof of macro-evolution. Not one of you has yet done so almost 600 posts later. You have absolutely no right to call evolution science when you constantly avoid giving the scientific proof for it.
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.