Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
I'm talking about the migration of species one to another. Science has no evidence of this. There's no "missing link" of any kind to show this. Darwinism as I said, is a hoax.
ID, on the other hand, offers no evidence.
If you choose to ignore the nature of design in every living thing around you including yourself, the detailed makeup of your eye, your ear, your brain, the built-in coded structure of DNA, etc., then you are willingly ignorant and blind to that which is before you. Preponderance of evidence is on the side of ID while Darwin loses due to (total) lack of evidence. The court of intellectual inquiry rejects Darwinism and accepts design with purpose and intelligence in living things.
Case dismissed. Next.
I think you mistaking species for class. I'm talking about transition from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals and birds. If what you're looking for is a transition from dog to cow, frog to human, things like that then you're looking in vain.
Preponderance of evidence is on the side of ID while Darwin loses due to (total) lack of evidence.
Science attempts to explain all that, you just refuse to accept it. And that's your choice. But ignoring all that science offers and then claiming that there is a "total lack of evidence" is ridiculous.
Case dismissed. Next.
Because you say so? Very much the ID stand. "It is what it is because I say it is." No evidence necessary. No proof required. That's a lot of things, but not science.
No disrespect intended, valkyry1, but I’m inclined to think that the good folks of Berkeley are properly certified, and not particularly susceptible to putting out “pure junk,” so I can’t associate myself with your remark. But, despite their pretensions otherwise, scientists shape the chorus they sing to the audience they believe they are addressing, and the result demonstrates that politics will rear its ugly head where ever politics offers the prospect of reward.
It screams intelligent design. Somebody designed the program to make your "fern". Somebody created the electronics to display it. Somebody started the process to create it. It just didn't happen to show up on mine or yours computer screen through a fortunate set of circumstances.
It's similar to using the same code for functions that are very close. For those of us who have done any type of computer programming it's pretty evident. Different pieces of code are written to perform the same internal action. There might be a program written that is meant to say, draw a fern like object. There may be another program written that is designed to calculate the number of 2 x 4's in a 4000 square foot house. On the surface these are two entirely different things. Yet the underlying code is going to be essentially the same. It's just going to be re-arranged and combined in different ways. There's going to be subroutines used that do the exact same thing from one program to another.
In the same way, two animals that appear similar are going to have much of the same code arranged the same way. Seaweed and humans don't look alike and they function differently thus their design, their underlying code, isn't arranged the same way.
God is the ultimate designer.
Thats quite okay. The Berkeley website “From soup to cells – the origin of life” looks to be all conjecture to me.
I'm not sure what it is, but it's clear to me that a number of universities didn't get the memo that we must not - absolutely must not - mix the origin of life with the TOE
"I'm not sure what it is, but it's clear to me that a number of universities didn't get the memo that we must not - absolutely must not - mix the origin of life with the TOE"
From this list:
Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?
Evolution Exposed
Evolution or Adaptation?
Evolution: The Anti-science
Evolution Is Religion
I selected one at random, "Evolution: The Anti-science" and took a look.
I have rarely seen more anti-science nonsense packed into a single essay.
Here is a sample:
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible.I keep warning you about the total nonsense you will find at AIG and the other creationist websites, but you don't believe me, and actually promote that stuff.
Thank you for the ping, dear Sister. That's another insight "right in the X-ring"!
FYI & FWIW, WRT The Word and Creation, I have always been partial to John 1:1...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OTOH & IMHO, the so-called "Intelligent Design Movement" is best labeled, "Cloaked Creationism" (as in Star Trek's infamous "Klingon cloaking device")...
The evolutionist denies the fact that if one follows the theory to its logical end that is where it leads to. At least Berkley does not try to evade it or hide it away.
That somehow molecules self-replicated and then formed cellular membranes etc and became the first cells. From the Berkley site “Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection”
The truth is, molecules do not ‘self replicate’ either in or out of the cell. What happens with DNA and RNA in the cell may look like self replication to someone who is already pre-determined to interpreting the events as such.
And outside of the cell the one attempt at molecular self replication produced a reaction that may have mimicked molecular self replication but in fact could have been yet another catalytic reaction begun under certain conditions and undetected contaminants which acted as the catalyst.
Weren’t you telling me that scientists can’t make “statements of fact” about what has happened in the past - that unless it was actually observed and measured it’s only speculation?
"Weren’t you telling me that scientists can’t make “statements of fact” about what has happened in the past - that unless it was actually observed and measured it’s only speculation?"
If I had a quote handy, I wouldn't need to ask. If you didn't say that, then just tell me you didn't say it.
The design of living things (as opposed to a non-living snowflake) points to a designer. If that’s circular reasoning to you then I’m afraid your having a problem with simple logic.
Again, Darwinism doesn’t have evidence to support its theory of the origins of life. ID’s evidence is everywhere. The issue is intelligent design because its evidence is commonplace and everywhere. As usual, you people present no rational in your refusal to deal with the reality of the design complexity that demands an acknowledgment of an intelligent designer. Typically you attack the messenger rather than confront the evidence of design (examples are everywhere and I’ve posted a few before and on this thread) that demands an acknowledgment of a designer.
"If I had a quote handy, I wouldn't need to ask. If you didn't say that, then just tell me you didn't say it."I'm not going to play that game.
And I agree with you about John 1:1!
To God be the glory!
Again, just because you say it doesn't make it so. Life exists, we know that. But just because you don't subscribe to evolution and don't accept its findings doesn't make ID right by default.
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.