Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis
I don't have to--mine is the skeptics position. All I need to demonstrate is that you haven't provided any evidence, much less proof.
And if you want to debate the point I will be glad to do so. We can start off with Marx who wished to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin because of how greatly he considered it helping his theory. We can continue with Eldredge who said that evolution made atheism respectable. We can continue with the long line of atheists who have been the main promoters of evolution: Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Gould, Eldredge, and Dawkins. If that is not enough we can just look at the avowed and obvious atheism of most of the evolutioninsts on these threads.
I haven't any idea how this point supports the rest of your argument, but, hey, what's new?
Gee, I already told you the point in the post you are responding to:
As to fitness cost, I already gave it to you in the post you are responding to " However, in real life there is a fitness cost of non-useful organs, DNA, etc. It takes energy, food, etc. to keep such useless things alive so there is definitely a fitness cost." Further you already agreed that even a small fitness differential will result in the more fit organisms overcoming the less fit.
The above seems pretty plain to me. However now you are starting with the doubletalk:
The point, if I might be so bold as to suggest sticking to it, was that it isn't necessary to punish failure to have evolutionary changes take place. It is only necessary to reward success.
The above clearly contradicts your statement in post#1012:
It's a truism of entomology (been demonstrated in sealed mason jars thousands of times) that when two nearly identical species occupy nearly the same contained biological nitche, one or the other will eventually prevail entirely, no matter how tiny its differential advantage.
Clearly, you are contradicting yourself within a matter of a few posts. Which is it - a tiny advantage destroys a species or not? Make up your mind.
In addition, the entire theory of evolution is based on 'survival of the fittest' and the 'natural selection' replacement of God the Creator to sift through the almost unimaginable amount of possibilities to achieve a more advanced organism. You are thus proving my points earlier on that:
1. the experiment is false because it does not punish as yet useless novelties.
2. that evolution is impossible because the gradualness of it cannot be achieved due to the necessity of each miniscule change making the organism more fit at each and every point.
You keep going back and forth between evolution and abiogenesis because you cannot contradict my devastating statements against either. Yes, the above does not apply to abiogenesis. However, I already demolished that one in post#1244:
For one thing, non-life cannot 'evolve'. YOu need a complete living thing to start off the life process and that requires at a minimum some half million DNA pairs. We do know that there is no needful arrangement of these pairs as regarding chemistry. We do not know of any DNA even in non-living things. Besides the arrangement of the DNA problem you have a few others in achieving life from non-life. One is that it takes more than DNA to make a living thing. You need the proteins, and the whole organism for life to work and be able to replicate itself. You thus have a chicken and egg problem here. In addition you have the problem of RNA reading the symbolic DNA code. This is impossible without a designer.
My argument against evolution is concicely stated in post#1265 just above. Pick and choose what you are arguing about and we can discuss that. Stop trying to purposely confuse the issues by saying that the argument against evolution does not apply to abiogenesis and that the argument against abiogenesis does not apply to evolution.
Matter cannot reason and not even the most ardent materialists argue that living things can will themselves into a new species so this argument is absolute nonsense.-me-
In what manner is this a relevant response to the extract quoted?
Seems quite obvious to me that matter cannot reason and not even evolutionists claim that organisms can will themselves into new more advanced forms of life. It takes a designer, a reasoning being to think and design things, not inanimate matter. Further that is the problem with this whole program - it was designed by intelligent beings. It was given 'logic' and 'reasoning' which matter does not itself has. It was given the power to self-modify itself which matter and not even living organisms have the ability to do. Therefore this experiment is as I (and many others have said) total nonsense. If evolution be science, then it needs to prove itself in real life. That it cannot do so, shows the emptiness and the lack of value of the theory, and its utter dissociation with real life.
First of all, there is no proof that man's sociability is an 'instinct'. There are many folk who are totally unsociable and like to live by themselves. If it were an instinct it should be universal amongst mankind.
Secondly, the point of the reference was that religion is good for the health of people. You seem to agree that it is yet take low blows against religion showing again that evolutionists and atheists are birds of a feather.
However, the point I made that definitely destroys materialism and which you do not wish to address is the well proven point that the will to live leads to longer life. This shows that there is a totally non-material portion of our nature which greatly influences the material part of it and therefore it shows that materialism is totally false.
SHOW ME THE BONES.
The actual bones that is, not paintings and drawings, the actual bones. Let's see them for the dinosaur to bird transition and for the reptile to mammal transition. Since these are the most recent large transitions, they should have the best fossil evidence of all.
Human beings are intelligent and in the image of God and therefore are able to alter their environment and even improve themselves, but animals cannot and never have been able to will themselves to change.
No, I am not. Almost all the evolutionists here are atheists, though almost all of them try to run away from the label. If questioned, they will show that they are indeed atheists, but they will fail to respond to it. Evolution is almost completely inimical to Christianity. The numerous attacks on Christianity by evolutionists is proof of that. In fact, here's a good one for you. This thread is over 1200 posts long. How about pointing out one (1) post in which evolutionists say something good about Christianity and Christian beliefs. Just one.
Well, since you claim to have read the book, kindly tell us exactly what particles of matter can generate turing machines. This I need to see, I can use a good laugh.
In other words donh, I am asking you to back up your statement. Can you do that, or are you going to resort to more insults?
Each time I say abiogenesis is impossible you argue with me. Now all I want from you is to show me one single theory which can resolve the following problems with abiogenesis - and explain how it surmounts them:
1. the problem of arranging some 500,000 pairs of DNA in exactly the correct way to make life possible.
2. the chicken - egg problem - you need DNA for life to exist, however, you need the products of DNA - the proteins, etc, in order to have an organism and for DNA to be able to work.
3. the DNA/RNA symbolism problem. You cannot have life without DNA coding for the amino acids which RNA translates into the amino acids which make the proteins of life. There is no chemical or other reason for the translation of these codes into specific amino acids. It is purely conventional as our letters represent sounds. So your theory also has to answer to how RNA was taught to interpret the DNA code.
Let's see you (or anyone else here) take up the challenge.
Yup. Essentially, atheists know that God exists but hate to admit it. They have become atheists because of hatred of God, not because they could care less about religion. The hatred shown towards Christianity by evolutionist-atheists amply proves my point.
His preoccupation with you, borders on the psychotic.
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.