Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Hey, what else can I say? As I donate my time helping out the science teachers at the High School across the street from my home, Gore2000 is my best example of false science.
Seriously, this is classic and very well done.
Is this some kind of joke??
Just where did oil come from?? God just made a bunch of it and stuck it underground?? Then made cars out of thin air to burn it to screw up the planet?
This means the fossils discovered are what? More crap that he buried to confuse us?
Does God understand the term specious argument?? And no, I did not have time to quit my job, stay home and read the crap that you took so much time to assemble. I have a 3 pound dog. Ringling Brothers has a huge elephant. Basically the same thing comes out of their butts; however the quantity doesnt alter the composition. BS is BS.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Well, one of those appears to be the evolutionary model - and it manages to say that admirably well.
That's circular reasoning at its worst. You managed to go in a complete circle inside of one sentence.
How about a link to where we can read about abiogenesis and the success in the lab in producing life from non life.
The fact that something happens even under the most extraordinary of circumstances does not mean it never happens.
Yes, and it is possible that the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. However, you would be foolish to accept such speculation as fact.
I think the objections to evolution are indeed quite strong. I will take a living organism's evidence of design over a few bones everytime. The big problem with evolution is that there is no 'how' to it. Each time evolutionists have proposed how it occurs, science has come along and thoroughly disproved it. One must at some point start saying 'a theory that is wrong so often cannot be correct'.
In order to discard the evolutionary model, then one must provide an alternative model which explains the available empirical evidence in a superior fashion.
I do not think that is correct. It is better to discard a false theory than to adhere to it. False theories lead to false conclusions and this is never good. However, there is a theory (and there has been since before Darwin) to explain life. It is called intelligent design and it is well explained by the little story from Newton above.
I can also tolerate a greater level of perceptual uncertainty than most seem capable of. Even assuming that I accepted the impossibility of abiogenesis as currently conceived, then I would simply say that something comparable had to have taken place at some point in the past that remains as yet unexplained.
Well, you can believe as you like of course but to hold the above belief you have to admit that you are forcing your theory on the facts instead of deriving it from the facts as it is proper. Therefore you cannot claim a scientific basis for a belief in abiogenesis.
Finally, however low the plausibility, it does not alter the fact that a particular event occurred nonetheless when the consequences of that event are self-evident.
Well, no one is arguing that life did not arise sometime in the past. The question is whether it was divinely wrought or it arose by chance. All scientific evidence is on the side of divine creation.
Tritely clever, but just. The sophist's tactic of turning the basis of his argument against his opponent. It is you that is professing a religious absolute, your opponents propose only a theoretical likely hood.
Well said.
Products of the Flood.
More crap that he buried to confuse us?
How are fossils in any way confusing? If trillions of animals lived and died, slowly evolving over billions of years, wouldn't there be millions upon millions of intermediate fossil forms? But the best those who argue for evolution can come up with is a half dozen fossils that are questionable?
It must make one angry to defend an impossible argument among FReepers!!! The same thing happened to me when I proposed making a lighter than air craft out of bowling balls encased in lead!!! That idea was shot down here pretty quickly too.
Stay safe; stay armed.
I also managed to insert two others: the meteorological model and the geological model. I wanted to see who may or may not pick up on this. ;-)
Yes, and it is possible that the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. However, you would be foolish to accept such speculation as fact.
However, if the sun did indeed rise in the west tomorrow, then I would have to modify my understanding of the universe post haste. The difference between myself and a creation scientist is that I'm capable of such conceptual modifications as required to conform with observable phenomena.
I knew I would get that response! Sounds very Clintonian to me! I am defaming Darwin because I dared to quote what he said! Don't you see how invalid your charge is?
Your statement that everyone was a racist is wrong also. Let's remember that it was just about that time that slavery was abolished and the slaves were given equal rights with whites in the US. Let's also remember that it was England which had for decades been the prime force towards the abolition of slavery throughout the world. So no, everyone was not a racist then. Anyways, that is no excuse and it shows your moral relativism.
The statement is also completely relevant to a discussion of evolution. Evolution does assert that some are inferior to others. Evolution does assert that destruction of the weak leads to progress. So the statement is a central part of evolutionary theory and cannot be written off as a personal eccentricity of Darwin.
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.