Posted on 01/13/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by Heartlander
Problem with the above is that evolution is a process. A process by which a species transforms itself into a higher more complex species. This process has never been observed. So yes, my statement is true, evolution is a faith in more ways than one and it certainly is not science.
There are actually 100 trillion cells in the human body. While of course many are the same yet, there are numerous different kinds of cells. The thing is that for a the proper cells to end up in the proper place you need extreme specificity. It is so specific, that the developmental process of an organism is called a program by developmental biologists. As we all know programs cannot be changed stochastically.
That does not address in any way the part of my post that says:
Your own intelligence denies this absurd view. Your own consciousness, conscience, logic, and all of mathematics and philosophy and art denies this viewpoint.
Do you deny that such things as consciousness, consciene, logic, mathematics, philosophy and art exist? Are you making such an absurd claim?
The Sistine Chapel was observed to have been painted by a man on a scaffold.
No one saw the caveman that painted the caves of Altamira. Does that mean they happened by chance? What this proves is two things - you can discern a designer from his works. It also proves that there is such a thing as intelligence which is completely outside your realm of reality yet it is the most powerful force in the Universe. It is undeniably the most powerful force in mankind.
Why do you keep insulting? Can you not discuss anything like a human being? If I am wrong, show where I am wrong. Insults prove nothing except your lameness and lack of character.
You claimed that the Sistine Chapel paintings were intelligently designed because it is a historical fact. The paintings of Altamira are not a historical fact yet we do attribute them to having been man made. So my assertion that you can tell that there is a designer from the object he has designed is clearly true.
But most rational people deny that you and I got here by some magical hand in the sky. Intelligence and consciousness are merely the by-products of eons of evolution and....humans are not the only possessors. Other primates and mammals are capable of language and symbolic reasoning as well.
Actually most of humanity believes in a Creator so unless you claim that most people are irrational, then that statement is false.
True! According to the numbers, over 86% of the World's population and every American President that has been in Office believe in a Creator.
Regards, MM
Can we discuss this? We'll see.
First, I stand by the content of my earlier post (#86). Second, I agree with the article that there is a current attempt by Darwinists generally to conflate ID to include Young Earth Creationism. You see references to "stealth creationism" in the media and you see the attempts to equate the two on this thread. It's rhetoric, it's political and it's dishonest.
I have posted that species are many -- hundreds of thousands at least, that they are characterized by stability over time, that there are few if any credible transitional forms and that "chance" and "mutation" are both failed attempts at explaining Evolution's fundamental mechanism. These are facts, not religion, and this mode of argument that cites the evidence is in accord with the rules of science. The very credibility of science is dependent upon evidentiary support for its theories found in the real world.
Yet there is a small but growing segment of the Evolutionists here on FR that asserts, out of the chute, that I am (1) a "liar" and (2) a "Creationist", the latter of which charges is intended to be pejorative. These are ad hominem attacks intended to discredit me personally. I am neither. Well, if this is the "mode of argument" chosen, those employing it will find that I do not turn the other cheek.
In my experience, everyone has a theory. Everyone. Ask anyone you meet and if they believe you're sincere and they are in the mood, they will tell you. An exaggerated example to make a point -- there was a 60 Minutes segment some while ago about idiot savants, the folks who can do amazing calendar "tricks" and mathematical calculations almost instantaneously. No one knows how. When asked how he was able to perform such "intellectual" feats, one such savant responded "Because I'm smart".
The essential point is that human beings can be rational and objective in spite of the fact that their life is influenced or governed by a structure of belief. (It is also true that wrong ideas can and do have a widespread deleterious cultural influence.) Western Science, which enshrines objectivity, grew to fullness in the womb of Christianity. This is fact, not supposition.
And Yes, along with everyone else, I have a theory. But I don't particularly care whether you agree with my theory or not. I want to know for myself and I am passionate in my desire to find and know truth. My "theory", if you will, is that God, among many other "things", is Truth.
Why should you care about my "theory"? No good reason. EXCEPT that I was a naive believer in Evolution as a child (having been so taught in the public schools) and well into my adult years UNTIL I read works that asked fundamental questions about the "theory" and examined the evidence in its support. I will post a list of books, if you like. I am prepared again to believe in Evolution if it can be shown that the facts support it. I must say, though, that the more I learn, the more bogus it appears to be. This begs the questions as to what motivates its supporters and why they are so vehement. I have my thoughts on this, but they will remain unexpressed for the time being.
When I joined FR some 4 years ago, great controversy surrounded the "issues" of "chance" as a driver of Evolution and abiogenesis as truth. Many long acrimonious threads were devoted these topics. Since then, Evolutionist support for these lines of argument has melted away because they have both been discredited. Today the Evolutionist position is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. The Darwinist position, in my humble view, is in retreat, so much so that it finds refuge in the banality, "change over time".
Now I am not often given to long posts, so I will step back at this point. (I am not among those who believe that length equals strength -- not enough hours playing Bridge, I suppose). But I have one final point about accusing others of lying before I stop. Some on my side of the debate do this. I don't like it. Who am I to be so judgemental? No one in particular. But if I am so accused, the poster will be attacked or dismissed in response because calling me a liar IS an attack.
Yes, excrement, being a natural product of a natural process, would best fit a naturalistic theory.
To me they are just that - - -irrational - - if they spend their lifetimes wrapped up in worshipping figments of other people's imaginations.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will com with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers died, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.
How about that!
The inmates have become the doctors. So many of these smug evolutionists insist on belittling the intelligence of creationists when they themselves come no closer to logic than an ad hominem fallacy.
Nice try but not even close. You would need to understand what the "Kingdom of God" was, how or if it was diffrent from the "Kingdom of Heaven" and why Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this earth.
I know theology looks easy to some of you but it is, as Mortimer Adler has demonstrated, the higest of the intellectual pursuits. It is higher than philosophy, says he, because it deals with the origin, purpose and destiny of man. -- And don't tell me that darwinism touches on any of these points. Chance is not an origin, meaningless is not a purpose and dust is not a destiny.
Your nonbelief in evolution is fine, but it shows an ignorance of facts.
If you had read my post, you would know I am not ignorant of the facts.
It also fails to take into account that over 99% of scientists believe that evolution is true, this tells me a great deal. Also, when Biologists, genticists, etc USE the theory in their work EVERY day, then it also tells me a great deal.
I don't believe anything like 99% of scientists believe in Evolution. Prove it. And I would be most interested in hearing how they USE the theory every day. And do you really believe that the biology establishment is without an agenda and that that agenda relates to research dollars?
Yes, there are some holes in the Theory that have not been filled, but they are fillng with the missing facts.
When the so-called theory can't even come up with a credible evolutionary mechanism, there are more than holes to be filled, the "theory" is all holes.
Creationists like to make these holes look huge, when in fact they are nothing when the whole theory is taken into account.
Now this is very irritating and another indication you did not read my post. I am not a literal Biblical Creationist. Stop addressing posts to me that have anything to do with what Young Earth Creatiionists believe or maintain.
Evolution CANNOT use god, that is why it is science. Science CANNOT prove, NOR disprove god, therefore god CANNOT be used as a causation, otherwise it would be called religion.
You are attempting to put words in my mouth. This is not anything like my position. Turning it arouond, when Evolution claims, as science, that the origin of our orderly and beautiful universe was attributable to "chance", which was a Stephen Jay Gould position, then, according to you, it is out of line. I happen to agree. The Evolutionists should therefore sit down and shut up when it comes to origins because that is not within science's purview.
As long as creationists DEMAND that god be used as a causation in evolution, they will continue to be disapointed.
Repeat after me, Aric: "Phaedrus is not a literal Biblical Creationist".
As soon as an intelligent designer, god, or whatever you choose to name it, is used, it is NO LONGER science, and therefore does NOT compete with the theory of evolution.
Just take the time to read the posted article, Aric.
If you can come up with a theory that is scientific, not using god as a causation, then we will talk about it being taught alongside evolution, but until then, evolution is the most accepted and will continue to be the most accepted theory by science.
Ah, more sophistry. Here's how science works, Aric. Someone comes up with an idea as to how the universe works. They formulate a theory. Then they check the facts, the evidence. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, it is junked. There is no requirement that a bad idea be replaced, just that it go away.
If you wish your children to be taught ID, creationsim, etc, then teach them, feel free, but do not expect the public schools to do it, because they are NOT science.
NEITHER is Evolution. I support the teaching of ALL the evidence with regard to Evolution in the public schools. That will be quite enough to bury it.
Now read and think before you post to me again. Repetition has a certain educational value but I do expect intelligent argument and a certain respect for the facts.
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.