Posted on 03/13/2002 6:00:25 AM PST by Heartlander
Can tell us what logical fallacies you speak of or is it that you disagree with the article but can not give any refutation of it?
You've got that 180-degrees backwards. The sum total count of miracles in the bible, both testaments, is probably less than 100, while evolution posits an endless sequence of probabilistic miracles, flagrant violations of mathematical and probabilistic laws which are as real as any law of physics.
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each existing religion and even that would make infinitely more sense than evolution does.
In fact, if some judge finally does decide to put religion on an equal footing with evolution in American schools, he will have to face the problem of finding the RIGHT religion for such a purpose, i.e. a religion which operates at an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be Rastifari and Voodoo, and even those two religions are too good to compare with evolution. He'd probably have to go with the Abbott and Costello version of Voodoo which you might have noticed in Abbot and Costello in the Ozarks, in which Lou Costello picks up the broom to whack the old witch with, accidently touches the starter button on the broom and goes flying off through the window and lands in a tree.
That's why we should avoid mixing religion and science in discussion of scientific matters. If someone says "I believe in evolution" and is told he is going to burn in Hell for having that belief, nothing is gained. On the other hand if someone says "I have doubts about evolution" and is told he is an ignorant fool, then nothing is gained either.
It seems to me that many defenders of evolution treat their belief as an unshakable tenet of faith rather than a scientific theory to be considered detachedly.
Interesting to see evolutionists finally admit that man did not descend from monkeys - after telling that lie for 100 years.
Tell me this: how can a theory that has been purposely lying for 100 years be considered science? How can it be believed now? Why should it be believed?
Since evolutionists have not been claiming that Man was descended from "monkeys" for 100 years, one is baffled as to why you have been believing this about evolution.
It is in fact creationists who have been making this deliberate misrepresentation. You should re-evaluate who it is that has the real credibility problem.
All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input.
Basic circular reasoning. The "words" imply intelligence so there must be some? I'm baffled why this simplistic article impresses you so.
However, it remains that "creation science" isn't.
However, even the great Harvard evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, admits that the different eyes in nature are not really related to each other in some simple-to-complex sequence. Rather, he suggests that eyes probably had to evolve over forty different times in nature. Darwin's nightmare has never been solved. It has only been made 40 times more frightening for the evolutionist.
This is actually more of a "fright" for creationists who now have some "intelligence" creating forty different eyes for no particular reason. That different eyes would evolve along different paths strengthens evolution's case rather than the reverse. Bizarre logic from the author again.
This proves that either you are not the same gore3000 posting to these threads on a regular basis, or that you suffer from some memory difficulties, and
You do not get your science from scientific sources, Because
Evolutionists have never claimed that men descended from apes. That is a canard some creationists claim evolutionists claim. Hell, most creationists do not even claim that evolutionists claim that (say that five times fast) because they know it is wrong and makes them sound ignorant. It is sort of refreshing to think you don't care how others perceive you.
This is actually more of a "fright" for creationists who now have some "intelligence" creating forty different eyes for no particular reason. That different eyes would evolve along different paths strengthens evolution's case rather than the reverse. Bizarre logic from the author again.
Gore3000 is right and you're wrong. A designer or diffferent designers seeing a new function in one creature and wanting to provide it to another could easily take different paths to the same function, working with what was available in each separate creature. Likewise, humnan designers generally seek to provide a function and not some particular implementation to their users. Were that not the case, the worlds armies would have entered WW-II all using the same rifle calibre.
In contrast, for the eye to have evolved forty different times involves so great a violation of probabilistic laws as to be laughable.
I have another solution to the debate. Those who don't believe in creationism were indeed pieces of green slime at one time. Those who believe in Creationism were made by God. Who says it has to be mutually exclusive? In fact, there are some signs that we have undeveloped green slime serving in the Senate.
You are playing word games. Not for the last 100 years they have not. For the last few decades they have not been making that claim. However Darwin did and evolutionists kept making that claim for 100 years after Darwin. It was a lie. A lie totally absent of any scientific evidence (like almost everything in Darwin).
Perhaps the one sentence you quoted looks circular, but in the context of the entire paragraph it is not. DNA codes because they have 20 possible values at each position are described by the letters of the alphabet. They are written like very long words. These words are very exact. A single change can result in a bad mutation. What is being said is that like writing a paragraph, it requires an intelligence in order to make it do what it is supposed to do. This is quite correct. The chances of the sequences of one gene arising at random are astronomical.
As to why I think it is a good article, because it explains quite concisely the problems with the theory of evolution. As you will notice in this thread, there are very few posts that even attempt to challenge the five propositions made at the beginning.
In contrast, for the eye to have evolved forty different times involves so great a violation of probabilistic laws as to be laughable.
No, what's laughable is the ludicrous "logic" of Creationists. For instance, if the same protein shows up in different animals, it must be evidence of an "intelligent design". But if different mechanisms of eyes show up in different animals, then its evidence of "intelligent design". Quite amusing.
Your understanding of DNA is quite flawed. I suggest you do more reading on how DNA works, since even the creationists have finally abandoned claiming that DNA isn't the genetic component of life on earth.
I am not playing word games. Your claims are simply and completely false. Evolutionists for more than a century have stated that Man and apes have a common ancestor. If you cannot understand the difference - which is not a word game - then you are not following the substance of the debate at all.
Glad you asked. First of all everyone knows about the so-called monkey trial. But let's be a lot more definite than that:
This case offers a good illustration how persistent may be the transmission of an absolutely useless faculty, probably derived from our remote semi-human progenitors; since many monkeys have, and frequently use the power, of largely moving their scalps up and down. (27. See my 'Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,' 1872, p. 144.)....
it is probable that the early ape-like progenitors of man were likewise social; ...
Thus the social instincts, which must have been acquired by man in a very rude state, and probably even by his early ape-like progenitors, still give the impulse to some of his best actions; ...
Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors ...
It deserves notice that, as soon as the progenitors of man became social (and this probably occurred at a very early period), the principle of imitation, and reason, and experience would have increased, and much modified the intellectual powers in a way, of which we see only traces in the lower animals. Apes are much given to imitation, as are the lowest savages;
All the above from: Darwin, "The Descent of Man".
So as I said, the evolutionists told for 100 years the lie that man descended from apes and now they do not even have the decency to admit they ever said that. In fact, they attack those who dare say that evolutionists said such a thing. Arrogance is the name of evolution, not science.
A total misrepresentation of my statement. What I said was quite simple - that DNA is a code which is often depicted as letters. That each codon specifies one of 20 amino acids which are used in the proteins that make up life. That a series of these codons form a message, just like letters do, the message is very specific and encodes the protein to be made. The whole code is like a long paragraph and it is as unlikely for that long code to be written at random as for a million of Darwin's monkeys to write a single paragraph of Shakespeare.
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.