Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl
Well someone has been saying that on many of the craetionist threads here.
2. Evolutionists always call their opponents crazy. In this thread, the article itself started those attacks - and the evolutionists on the thread continued them.
Your use of the word always here is a gratuitous assertion. And any gratuitous assertion can be refuted by finding a counter example. And there are many posters here that are trying to get answers from creationists without bashing them(I personally have only bashed in retaliation) But yes, there have been bad things said from both points of view. The original article was about a scientist(I should have put in in quotes for you) who did not want what he said to be taken out of context. Seems pretty simple to me.
3. Some evolutionists here, who are definitely atheists, keep trying to pass off evolution as no threat to religion while attacking religion and religious people visciously. This is blatant hypocrisy, blatant dishonesty and needs to be pointed out so that others will not be misled into believing they can make a pact with the devil and not lose their soul.
Here is a shocker for you. I believe in God and evolution(his mechanism for making all forms of life). Last time I checked I did not ink any contract with Satan.
4. The evolutionists keep using any excuse to avoid engaging in a discussion of the scientific facts behind the question. Your post is such an evasion. If you wanted to, you could have instead given proof for your side, no one is stopping you.
Lets talk scientifically. Someone please answer my questions from post 201. I also see you contradicting yourself in this thread by using science when you see fit, then bashing it when it does not support your point.
I can't do that, I think you have to die first to see it. However, we could set up some experiments to see some species transform themselves into another genus. We could for example take some short lived, fast reproducing species and alter its environment, bombard it with all kinds of chemicals and stuff and see if it transforms itself into a more complex species.
We could for example take a virus, or better, many different viruses, put thousands of scientists to do the above for a few dozen years and see if one of the viruses turns itself into a self replicating bacterium. We could take scientists from schools, from drug companies and from as many different disciplines as possible. Of course this would take billions and billions of dollars, lots of equipment and the minds of many smart people to think up of new ways to test these viruses. I am not sure you and I could set up such a test.
But wait! All is not lost! This has already been done! And what is even better, it continues to be done! We don't have to go through all that work and expense! And never in that multitude of tests has a virus been transformed into a bacterium.
Trite saying. Absence of proof is absence of proof for everything but absence of proof. Thus it is certainly no proof of evidence for your point which requires evidence known to be missing. Thus the patch job by Gould et al.
How uterly silly. I make valid points that have nothing to do with Gould, but obviously you did not read it. I would be glad to talk about my post but you will have to actually read it and mature a bit before that is possible.
I find it very funny that Creationists love to talk about science when it comes to attempting to disprove evolution. But when faced with science questioning their view of creation, they run for the hills. Please answer my questions.
No. As pointed out earlier in this thread, what punk-eek does is cover all the bases and makes evolution completely non-falsifiable in two ways: first if we see a species changing gradually, then it's evolution, if it changes all of a sudden, then it's evolution also. In addition since punk-eek does not say how such a thing would happen, there is no way to test for it, so punk-eek by itself is totally non-falsifiable. What this means is that punk-eek is not science, it is nonsense.
That is the point. Pray tell why am I obligated to answer any question posed by you, unless it is directed at something I have posted?
You can look all you like and you will see that homo sapiens has been around for only some 50,000 years. I showed quite clearly that the one Eve theory from DNA disproves that man descended from another species. You wish to turn a scientific discussion on the suppossed home ground of evolution into a religious one, sorry, I will not bite. Evolution claims to be science, it is not. It has been disproven by science not just in this case, but many other times.
Agreed, but it is more than Genesis. Evolution is totally materialistic. It leaves no room for God as Creator, which is a very important attribute. It leaves no room for God as involved in humanity, because if He is involved in the day to day happenings of the universe, what do we need evolution for? Clearly evolutionists could not say "God did not do this or that" if they acknowledged Him, and evolutionists always say that. Also the God of the deists is not the Christian God and that is the most that the theory of evolution would allow for.
But I'm not going to discount evolution and if it should be established without doubt -- which it in no way has been -- I will believe it and my faith will not be affected.
I am glad to hear that.
There was no call to insult anyone. The article insulted those who disagreed with evolution. In fact, the whole article had nothing scientific about it, it was just a long rant against those who dared to use Gould's own words against evolutionists.
BTW - despite your denials, your post#201 deliberately insulting me for no reason, shows my statement to be correct.
Here is a shocker for you. I believe in God and evolution(his mechanism for making all forms of life). Last time I checked I did not ink any contract with Satan.
Well your post#201 specifically shows your total disregard for Christianity and its teachings for sure. As to your belief in God, I doubt it very seriously.
You do not want to talk science, you want to bash religion. You do not want to give evidence for your side, you want to insult your opponents. In other words, you do not want to discuss evolution honestly.
I recommend Christianity myself, but anything is better than evolution. You could worship Odin, you could worship Kthulu, you could be a voodooer or a rastifarian or believe in the great pumpkin, and NONE of those things involves an endless series of violations of mathematical and probabilistic laws the way evolutionism does.
Quite true! Seems there are a lot of Art Bell fans on the evolutionist side!
That sounds more like metamorphosis, which is a part of some theistic systems but has never been observed in the natural world.
Darwinian evolution literally is things acquiring something completely new. Everything is supposed to have descended from single cell organisms. Did single cell organisms have legs? Did they have brains? They had to develop somewhere along the line. There was something without a brain, and then something later on with a brain. Again, you should at least understand the most basic elements of the theory you are promoting.
Sorry I cannot be of help. I know a lot about AlGoreisms, but not about algorithms.
And when will we be allowed to see this evidence - in another 150 years? Evolutionists keep repeating the mantra that evolution is indubitable, absolutely proven, beyond a doubt, etc., etc., etc. but never give any proof of it. I wonder why. Will you be the first evolutionist to give such proof?
Because your inability to answer those questions, which are very basic to your view of creation, tells me that you are afraid of something.
Well, read the Bible, read Darwin and see how much contradiction there is between the two. Evolution specifically denies that man was created in the image of God.
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.