Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So now you think you're a geologist? You just said that the slower you fold the rocks, the more destructive to the sediments they contain. Sorry, professor! The faster you fold them, the more energy they have to absorb locally and the more likely they are to be pulverized/melted/metamorphosed. It's simple physics.
Also, check out this page on predictions of Biblical catastrophism. I suspect it applies to your model.
Now, while they say "gene duplication" is responsible for the added HOX genes, evolutionary presupposition only, stands in the way of the genetic material being assembled that way from the start.
I notice everywhere you make any evidence you don't like by saying "conjecture," or "supposition." If I really could drag all the evidence in front of you, you'd be waving away so much your arms would get tired.
Hmmm. 20 Evidences for Macroevolution.
If things evolved as the result of random, naturalistic processes, I would not expect to find the same genes controlling the development of similar structures in diverse organisms, but rather, similar genes doing different things in different species because of the randomness factor if for no other reason.
Evolution is not random. Variation is random. Evolution is common descent with variation and natural selection.
When I became a Christain and a creationist, I didn't check my brain at the door.
Conjecture.
Nor the death of it. A cheap knockoff. And that designer ain't God.
If you do, what gives you that confidence?
How do you know God didn't design life? Are you suggesting you can logically prove with complete certainty that God had no role?
That ought to be simple. Your proof, please.
Typo number 2,764 today. 29 Evidences.
AndrewC's theory has a designer who I say isn't an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God. "Prove me wrong."
Are you suggesting you can logically prove with complete certainty that God had no role?
Are you suggesting you can find where I said that?
That ought to be simple. Your proof, please.
WTF are you talking about? Read the thread before you jump in sometime, Bozo.
"Ahhhh. Yeah! (Can you say "non sequitur?")
Well, I did mention it was mostly a theological reason, just so you wouldn't wonder.
"This kind of thing gets really dumb. It's the creationist's Desperation Last Defense. Anything a human does in the area of research can be argued to be designed. Pointing that out doesn't overthrow the result of the research."
Well then I ask you, if it's verboten to question research such as Hardison's as not representing random natural processes, why do you think that Rennie would have included that work in one of his "answers"? It makes no sense to me. Actually, when I was the evolutionist and in college, such "experiemnts" didn't make any sense then, either. Those experiments are designed to prove the unprovable and they just don't work as desired. Since the goal is to prove a process that admittedly is supposed to take untold millions of years of random naturalistic processes to achieve it's result, that is the environment the experiment must be conducted in, and according to those rules, or as best they can be determined. In other words, it's a waste of time because you'll not live to record the result.
Tinkering with the natural process (writing a program to "simulate" a set of random processes or conditions) would be no different than G-d creating something ex nihilo. The random, natural process is corrupted by the action of an outside force, using a plan.
Great comeback, I'm impressed..... NOT!. You're not even a challenge. The same old stuff. "Because I or Don Lindsay say so you are wrong" is your total repertoire. Woese(although he is probably wrong), Shapiro, Behe, Gee, Venter, etc. etc. etc. Although they are not all what you term IDers, they all know that something in biology stinks. The only thing there at the moment is Darwin(as you all seem to point out), so guess what is rotting.
Your proof, please.
Ought to be a piece of cake.
Why did it take so long to move on from bacteria to cells with nuclei? HE--the real HE--could do more than that in six days, I heard once. What are all these extinctions? What are all these unfit creatures your cheap knockoff of evolution says have to die. Why? Because HE couldn't make them right to begin with!
Yes, you can make a creation theory that mimics evolution. But it won't make your church doctrine into science anytime soon.
I made no such claim. So leave me out of your argument.
Your "ID" theory just lost all hope of appealing to the ID movement.
Post 812. Now prove me wrong.
Still waiting for you to back this up. Show me where I said this.
That designer (YOUR designer) not only isn't God, he's barely good. Why did it take so long to move on from bacteria to cells with nuclei? HE--the real HE--could do more than that in six days, I heard once. What are all these extinctions? What are all these unfit creatures your cheap knockoff of evolution says have to die. Why? Because HE couldn't make them right to begin with! Yes, you can make a creation theory that mimics evolution. But it won't make your church doctrine into science anytime soon.
|
Hey Vade, everything dies!!! Surprise!!
Darwin is on the rocks, you just can't get over it. Go back and quote Don Lindsay, He's more entertaining than you are. Probably writes better books too.
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.