Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis
That one is even more biased. The editor is the author of a totally moronic screed against the opponents of evolution. It was quickly refuted in 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense . Like all evolutionists, they did not try to refute the response to their moronic rants against opponents, instead they tried to have it suppressed. So much for evolution being science.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. What science has found is relevant. It has found that over 40 new animal phyla arose during the Cambrian in a matter of a few million years at most. It has found no possible ancestors for the vast majority of these phyla. In addition, no new animal phyla have arisen since that time. This totally disproves Darwinian evolution and is why Gould and Eldredge, both inveterate atheists, broke off with Darwin and proposed a totally new materialistic/atheistic theory (based on nothing but wishful thinking).
I have not said that man has no material needs. What I have said is that man is not driven merely by material needs. The saying 'the pen is mightier than the sword' ilustrates the complete difference between man and beasts. Ideas, thoughts drive man's actions as much as material things. Abstract terms such as freedom resound even more strongly in their hearts than the desire for material things and often drive them to risk their lives for it.
Further, man is the only creature which has art. This is a totally non-material activity which in no way has any basis on material needs but shows man's innate need to nourish the spirit as much as the body.
It is crystal clear to me that you are another one of these charlatans who use your anti-science point of view to shakedown gullible Christians for money.
Caught in yet another lie, you continue to evade and misdirect. You pretend not to remember what you posted, but it's clear that you're doing this deliberately. No wonder everyone ridicules you.
Here's another reason:
[snip] Predictability is a requirement of science, [snip]=========================================================1,359 posted on 05/14/2003 7:28 AM EDT by gore3000
Quick; somebody better call the meteorologists and tell them to turn in their "Scientist" credentials; since they can't "predict" the weather accurately more than three or four days in advance (and never will, due to the fact that weather systems are an example of non-linear dynamical systems with extreme sensitivty to initial conditions), meteorology, by G3k's definition, cannot be "science."
Your beliefs are quite relevant when you make claims that are at variance with generally accepted scientific practice.
It's a simple question. How long ago do you believe the Cambrian to have occured?
No, what you said was, and I quote:
are not driven by their material nature,
So, not only are you wrong, you're trying to weasel away from what you said.
The saying 'the pen is mightier than the sword' ilustrates the complete difference between man and beasts.
Yes, men build pens to keep animals in for later consumption, and use swords on each other. Animals just use their teeth and claws where opportunity permits, since they lack the evolutionary history that forced man to become a tool user.
What's your point?
1) To sell. (ie make money, to buy food, shelter, clothing, time share condos, girlfriends, etc)
2) Social recognition (which is another pathway to food, shelter, girlfriend's pants, etc)
The "artist" that creates, but doesn't show it to anyone, has a mental disorder not conducive to survival.
.Seems I have to keep reminding you of what each one of us posted just a post or two back. Losing your memory or trying to dance your way out of bluffs you have been called on?
This surpasses even your capacity for rudeness.
This does not constitute a claim that I have read the book. No one has read the book--that would be like reading Numbers or the phone book. Like everyone else, except possibly Wolfram, I have scanned it for the meat, and ignored most of the examples and details of implementation.
Evolution is not just about prokaryotes and you know it.
A fairly idiotic attempt to distract from how tissue-thin your fundamental argument is through irrelevant agreement.
My statements apply to all evolution and you know that also.
Repetitive blue drivel at it's finest. I know no such thing. Nobody writ in concrete that fitness test failures are necessary for evolution to take place. They only become important when vast treasures of nutrients are in permanent short supply, relative to our ability to procreate.
1. the experiment is false because it does not punish as yet useless novelties.
Hogwash. prove it. You don't know squat about what the rules were before meat machines existed, and you've provided no compelling evidence whatsoever, for about an eon now, to suggest why I should take seriously the notion that there was nothing before meat machines. What's a virus?
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.
As you know, but conceal from the audience, this is Behe-ist drivel that was disproved before Behe even published. How do you account for the immune system trying literally millions of failed combinations to drive out a foreign body before stumbling on the right one?
Now stop trying to confuse the issue and address the points I have made above about evolution and in post# 1329 about abiogenesis.
If I needed someone to guide and direct my conversations, I'd look up my ex-wife--you're not qualified on a breathtaking basis.
They are completely different questions which you continue to try to confuse with each other for some 100 posts already.
Even if you break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, the points you have made are all predicated on the absurd notion that there was nothing before prokariotes. My argument is pretty simple, but it's easy to understand how you could get confused.
This is intelligent design.
Yes, they intelligently designed an experiment that tested how complexity can and does arise *without* the intervention of intelligent design.
Your point? If you had one?
Sigh -- someday I hope to see "intelligent response".
...as we now start the countdown to see how quickly Andrew posts his *next* non sequitur explanation/excuse for a) why he need not deal squarely with the issues raised until we jump through 14 more hoops he sets out, or b) why the whole thing is easily dismissed (in Andrew's mind), e.g. "but they didn't use *cheese*, did they? Huh? Huh?!?"
Okay, now you are really showing what a low life you are. Instead of discussing the question you slime - as usual with atheist evolutionists. If you were a Christian you would not slime me for asking you a couple of questions. The questions are short and to the point and being an atheist evolutionist you cannot answer them so all that is left for you to do is sliming me. Here are the questions you refuse to answer from post 1350:
Like all the others you are sliming instead of discussing. In post# 1271 I asked you to refute my statement about most evolutionists here being atheists and challenged you to do the following: 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. In 1323 I asked you: How can a good Christian who believes in an Allmighty God, say that evolution is the only viable explanation for man, species, and living things????????????? Of course you do not respond to the above and indulge in personal insults. You cannot argue with the truth, so you follow in the steps of your fellow evolutionists and refuse to meet the challenges put to you to back up your statements with facts and to respond to questions.
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.