Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
This remains an excellent question. I would be interested in seeing it answered.
Actually that depends on what "theory of evolution" is being discussed.
Definition 4b for evolution in Merriam-Webster OnLine is: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations to which is what Aric2000 is probably referring.
Definition 6 is a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena which is what many -- including some of my high school science teacher as well as some popular news magazines-- seem to mean when describing evolution.
Where did you get these numbers. Did you make them up or did Behe make them up?
The 1% is (incorrectly) quoted all over these boards by EVOLUTIONISTS. The human genome, if you have been paying attention is some 3,000,000,000 DNA bases long, 1% of 3 billion is 30 million. I know the math is really tough but you can check it with your calculator.
I stated exactly why the adaptation of the finches is not evolutionary in my post:
Another example is the Galapagos finches. The rains there are very variable. Remember the El Nino? Comes every seven or eight years? This causes constant changes and is the source of the increase and decrease in beaks in the finches. If forces them to constantly adapt back and forth. If evolution were true and these beaks changed due to mutations, they would not be able to do that. Because evolution is false and the finches's genomes are able to adapt the size of the beaks without mutation they can adapt to the periods of high and low rainfall which constantly occurs there.
Now the above clearly cannot be evolution, yet this is one of the two favorite examples of evolutionists for micro-evolution. The other favorite example is the moths and we know that that study was fraudulent. What this means is that evolutionists cannot even give proof of micro-evolution let alone give proof of the transformations necessary for one species to become a new more complex species.
If you mean by that that jumbled cut and paste which I told you I would not read you will die waiting. If you want an answer to a question just ask it.
And no I will not go into a theological discussion. You are wishing to divert this from a scientific discussion to an attack on religion like all evolutionists do when they are losing an argument (and BTW you are using the other tactic of insulting the messenger since my posts #988, 989 and 991 which you cannot respond to).
It's the Patty Murray syndrome.
Aaah, the hyena of evolution going down like a lemming trying to back up a fellow evolutionists who stuck his foot in his mouth so deeply that he has made a complete fool of himself - as you are doing by supporting him.
How either of you do not know that the genome is 3 billion DNA base pairs long and claim that you are evolutionists because it is science and not see that 30,000,000 is 1% of 3 billion is unimaginable. You both have shown yourselves to be totally ignorant.
I have not read him yet, but I have long believed that there has to be something non-material going on in our understanding and our thinking. We certainly cannot keep every detail of every physical thing we see, yet somehow or other we can remember places, people and things and we can abstract from one thing to another such as we do not have to see every elephant to know that something is an elephant. Our brains certainly have an ability for abstraction and symbolism which can in no way be explained by materialism.
You are completely losing it Vade. Lay down have a few beers, relax and come back tomorrow. How can one have evidence of a Universe that no longer exists? Please.
Spiritualists not only deny their own earthly humanity, but also everything that is good in life here on earth in order to arrogantly proclaim they know more about invisible kingdoms.
First of all I am not a spiritualist. This is a demeaning term for someone who is religious.
I do not think my life (or anyone's is poorer) by say obeying the Ten Commandments. What is good in life that one misses out by obeying the Ten Commandments?
It's not the same thing. A rock has no specificity, no purpose. The Universe has a tremendous amount of specificity, of purpose (in addition to complexity). We ordinarily think of things which have all three - complexity, specificity and purpose as designed. Some examples would be works of art, houses, automobiles, computers, etc. We can pick them up like the rock, but we do not think it arose at random. We may know know the name of their maker or the name of their designer, but we do know as surely as we are typing to each other here, that it was not a randomly occurring thing. We know with complete certainty that there was a human mind behind it.
Of course it does. Evolution is materialistic and atheistic. The Law of Biogenesis disproves materialism. There had to be a beginning to life and it was not material, that is what the law says. If one allows God as the Creator of life, then how can evolutionists deny that He created man? Why would it be so unlikely that he would have done as He says in the Bible? It would not be at all unlikely, in fact, it would be the most likely explanation. Evolution requires one to believe many pretty tall tales. If there is a God, there is no need to believe such tall tales because the answer is readily at hand - God. So yes, evolution requires abiogenesis, it requires life from matter, it requires a random Universe. The problem for materialistic evolution is that science has shown both abiogenesis and a random Universe to be utterly ridiculous.
After you bring proof of one single species transforming itself into another. The reason why scientists believe the Universe has been designed has already been explained to you and has gone unrefuted. The reason why life could not arise at random is as follows:
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
So start the insults, you certainly cannot refute the above so that is the only lame tactic left to you and your friends. Prove my statements true with your vituperation!
Wow, you mean that billions of religious people wrote that one article? Are you saying something that ridiculous? Or are you saying that the only creationists are those people that write for 'Answers in Genesis'? You paint with a very broad brush. While all Christians agree that the Bible is true, they do not agree on the proper polemics to be used against materialistic evolution. That is a scientific matter, not a matter of faith.
Also unlike evolutionists, we think for ourselves, we are not mind numbed robots such as Patrick who find it necessary to deny the most obvious facts in order to support their mind numbed robot friends.
And what post would that be? Will you reply with a post# or with an insult?
Why do you deny that which you yourself believe? You are an evolutionist answer this simple question - did God create life or was it the result of random chance?
Evolutionists always claim that one has nothing to do with the other yet almost invariably they believe both in evolution and in abiogenesis. Well, if one has nothing to do with the other this is an amazing coincidence and I for one do not believe in coincidences.
For someone that does not know that the human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs, you should not be saying such things Patrick! Every time you open your mouth you display your scientific ignorance.
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.