Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Nawwwwww. Didn't think so.
Oh please.
That's such a ridiculous claim to make. What, like LASERS (yes, machines invented by man) imitate some natural process inside man?!
You Evolutionists are a RIOT!
Nuclear fusion? Nuclear fission? CD-ROMs?! Hard drives?! Wheels?! Zippers?! Asphalt layers?! Apollo rockets?!
Darwin must be proud of his students like you. < /MOCKING >
really, and if you can't see the dif, too bad for you.
Pesky questions never won anyone any friends.. ;)
You have butchered our poor language if you think that you can skate by with your bizarre claims - by equating "imitating/mimicking" with either reverse-engineering or "coincidentally working in a similar fashion". When the first telegraph repeater station was set up, it is accurate to say that it coincidentally worked in a similar fashion to how human brains transmit information, but it is NOT accurate to say that man was mimicking or imitating human brains with that repeater station. For one thing, man didn't even KNOW how the human brain transmitted information back in 1850!
This kind of thinking makes me think of two blood cells arguing about whether the iron they are carrying around is alive or not.
In the I Ching there is a line about seeing the world through a crack in the door, like a woman peering at world through the door in her house. That's what this reminds me of. This discussion has already gotten tiresome, rationality and deep thought not being strong points for creationists.
Archaeoraptor's short career before exposure ended early in 2000! Congratulations, you almost made it into the 21st century! (Alas, that started almost a year later on Jan 1, 2001.) Funny, you had to skip from humans to birds after one fraud from 1912 and one lost crate of fossils from WWII on the human line.
What's still missing compared to what's there?
Your supposition would be in error. Where does the Bible allude to this? It interests me.
God created it and he did it in the sequence described in Genesis. What epochs of time actually occured are really the ONLY subject of debate to me.
With us discovering galaxies so far away that it would have taken billions of years for the light to travel, I kinda have trouble believing that God would make things in an instant that are old like that... but He could have.
There's a huge difference between expanding the time beyond 6,000 years and embracing the evolutionists theory part and parcel. I am a Christian and as you'd expect don't buy into any 'divinely-inspired creation' theory... but timewise, I think we're putting God in a box if we take a hard line to think the whole universe was made in 6 24 hour days. Wouldn't rule it out... but does the evidence support it?
I have heard quite a bit of evidence that the earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years.... but let's still leave room for God to be God. Sometimes our literal interprations may paint us into a corner that prevents others from believing in our great God and his son Jesus.
That's funny. It sounds as though a translated version of that screed would read "I've just gotten mentally trounced, so I had better give some face-saving reasons why I am fleeing from Southack to less challenging adversaries."
That claim of yours that EVERY machine invented by Man was already internal to humans gave me a good laugh, though.
So at least you were funny, in an inadvertant way, while you stuck around...
Nothing compared to the way creationists butcher logic and reason.
When the first telegraph repeater station was set up, it is accurate to say that it coincidentally worked in a similar fashion to how human brains transmit information, but it is NOT accurate to say that man was mimicking or imitating human brains with that repeater station. For one thing, man didn't even KNOW how the human brain transmitted information back in 1850!
First you acknowledge the point, then argue against it in a fashion that supports it, about what I'd expect.
Whether it is a 'conscious' imitation or not is besides the point. Whether you want to admit that a highway is analogous to a blood stream as Base 4 is analogous to Base 2 in their respective functions is of no matter to me.
The fact is you are desperately trying to divert the issue by niggling on these little details from the fact that there is no scientific basis for creationism, and that asserting so is damaging to real science. I understand that my analogies are beyond you, that's to be expected.
Actually, no. Believe it or not! He's trying to conduct a serious debate while you're enraptured with juvenile word games. That much should be (but probably isn't) self-evident to any outside observer.
No, it means you don't answer with logical rebuttles, you answer with denials that aren't backed up by anything, and with unsupported and unsupportable opinions, and that those that argue in such a manner never really say anything. Now you are merely extending the range of the personal attacks based upon a statement you were incapable of understanding and think you've won something.
Perhaps you should drop the 'south' part from your name, then it would be more fitting.
Thanks, when lost down these rabbit holes I often lose perspective due to the madness. Would hate to blow a gasket, nice to see someone is following what I'm trying to say. Shall I serve tea?
No, it isn't "beside" the point, it is CENTRAL to the point. If ONLY intelligent entities can be shown to be responsible for a process (e.g. a computer software program), then it isn't very credible to suggest that non-intelligent entities are responsible for a that or an analagous but unknown process.
"Whether you want to admit that a highway is analogous to a blood stream as Base 4 is analogous to Base 2 in their respective functions is of no matter to me."
That's just jibberish. Base 4 math is an order of magnitude of complexity GREATER than Base 2 (i.e. Binary) math. Yet show me where Binary programs form without Intelligent Intervention and THEN we'll be able to discuss whether the vastly more complex Base-4 instructions in DNA could even potentially be formed without Intelligent Intervention.
But the burden of proof is on you. Where is that mystical non-intelligence-formed Base-2 software program?!
After all, I can show PLENTY of examples of such software that has been made WITH intelligent intervention (so I've done my burden of proof - that leaves you out in the cold again)...
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.