Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee

Ah yes, the inherent contradiction at the heart of the Creationist delusion.

They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat - at a speed and with a power far beyond that proposed by evolutionary biology.

Yet they claim to not accept evolution - despite when they need it, accepting it at many hundreds of times the observed rate.

You find nothing objectionable about Zebras and Horses being related, but find it an impossibility that humans and chimps could be related by common descent?

Are you aware that the genetic difference between a Horse and a Zebra is much greater than the genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee?

How is it that such a large change is perfectly reasonable over a very short time period - but much less of a genetic change is absolutely impossible even after six or seven million years?

Can you explain to me how you explain that to yourself?

That should be amusing!


127 posted on 02/21/2012 1:24:54 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
Ah yes, the inherent contradiction at the heart of the Creationist delusion.

The inherent contradiction is that this thread was NEVER about evolution.

Trolls who are uncomfortable addressing the truth about Darwinism have tried to make it about evolution.

It's rather ironic the way the left idolizes certain people, people like FDR, the Kennedys, Castro, Marx and Darwin are beyond reproach in their eyes.

130 posted on 02/21/2012 1:42:18 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream
They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat

Is this your ignorance of the position of those you are arguing against or a demonstration of intentional dishonesty?

Do you even realize that you are conflating and equivocating the term "evolution" denoting "change", and saying that the same observation of change demonstrates "descent from common ancestry"?

Can you honestly not see a difference? Or perhaps intellectual honesty not a big concern...

137 posted on 02/21/2012 2:02:53 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream; wagglebee; metmom

amd: They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat

Spirited: Christians accept ‘microevolution,’ that is, changes within kinds. What they reject as absolute nonsense is macroevolution, the idea that one kind, i.e., dinosaurs can change into another kind, i.e., humming birds.

Underlying this nonsense is the Big Lie: Man can change into God.

Informed Christians do not confuse the former for the latter as do superstitious evolutionists.


146 posted on 02/21/2012 2:28:35 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream
Yet they claim to not accept evolution - despite when they need it, accepting it at many hundreds of times the observed rate.

What is the "rate" of evolution?

Not simpleminded: more complex than you're used to dealing with.

Some features are conserved: the "rate" of evolution in those features is essentially zero.

Some features (the ansatz of natural selection) are held to change fairly rapidly by survival of the fittest in a relaxation process akin to Metropolis Monte Carlo.

But, different features are conserved, or subject to change, within different species, or different environments, or different sets of environmental changes, or different changes to the local food web, over different time scales.

And (see the "nylon bug") -- specific changes can apparently be accelerated (given artificial suppression of predation, unlimited food, and a huge population all subject to the same local constraints) for a short time to a specific end.

So who says natural selection must be random?

Or can't God ever put His thumb on the scales without bothering to tell us? (...or YOU?)

Just stirring the pot.

Cheers!

316 posted on 02/25/2012 2:10:36 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson