Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Is Biologically Impossible
www.irc.org ^ | Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D

Posted on 06/24/2002 2:56:50 PM PDT by Texaggie79

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-342 next last
To: Texaggie79
What's his PhD in?
61 posted on 06/24/2002 3:56:47 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
What happened to the Neanderthals? My guess is that we killed the ones we couldn't (or wouldn't) f***.
62 posted on 06/24/2002 3:58:47 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: berned
Yea but it could have, would have and may have happened anyway. And besides where is you imagination??? With evolution all things are possible if you only believe. Just make up a good story and you can call it science!
63 posted on 06/24/2002 3:58:51 PM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
I've seen better ones but the various links here are fairly brief: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

I'd like a Creationist to explain why whales have small muscles devoted to moving their ears, when they don't have any ears.

64 posted on 06/24/2002 3:59:13 PM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: berned
You ask these questions as if Homo sapiens were the only living organism to ever have an eye or light sensitive organ of any kind. You can't really have that simplistic a world view can you?
65 posted on 06/24/2002 3:59:17 PM PDT by The Mike Device
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I wanted to join this thread...can I bring tpaine with me?
66 posted on 06/24/2002 3:59:25 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Come on. You ask us how it "could have" happened, and then you say we can't use words like "could have" in our answers. Wasn't that one of the verses in "Scarborough Fair"?

67 posted on 06/24/2002 3:59:35 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RonF; spqrzilla9; KayEyeDoubleDee; Physicist; staytrue
the argument about the origin of life, and the science of how new species had and have originated are two different issues.

So true. Evolution is like rust: I can argue that the model T is rusting away in the field. Rust is what is happening to it, but rust is not what created it.

Many creationists think that by talking evolution at all we are denying that God created life. Of course He created life. That doesn't mean life can't "evolve" or even "de-evolve" (which I think might be the more accurate description) after creating it. After all, I do not think man is as physically pure as he was when God initially created the first ones, male and female.

The big missing link, of course, with evolution theory is how life began in the first place. That is why many studying the evolution of life become believers in a "creator" while still trying to piece together what happened to life after creation.

The biggest problem with these "evolutionists" who believe there is a creator is that although they believe He could create the first DNA strand, they can't accept that He could have created a fully developed man, fish or planet. They believe to a point. Their creator or "god" is severely limited.

Worse, they presume to know why he would have created everything from a starting point of a single cell or DNA or RNA. They flatter themselves. To equate their staggeringly puny mental abilities to those of the creator of life itself is like my dog sitting in judgement on why I go to work everyday.

My dog's brain is limited. Our brains are too. Some of us have reached the mental heights to at least know that much. Others are such mental pygmies that they don't even know that they don't know.

He spoke, and it was made.
He commanded, and it stood fast. - Psalm 33

68 posted on 06/24/2002 4:00:25 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: Texaggie79
You going libertarian on us?
70 posted on 06/24/2002 4:01:18 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Life was designed. It did not evolve.

What is your proof? You use your false statistics to try to disprove the only usable theory on how life began without offering a counter-theory. If only we are to believe you ....

71 posted on 06/24/2002 4:02:32 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Mike Device
You ask these questions as if Homo sapiens were the only living organism to ever have an eye or light sensitive organ of any kind. You can't really have that simplistic a world view can you?

ANY eye. Now answer the question, unless you accept evolution uncritically. You can't really have that simplistic a world view can you?

72 posted on 06/24/2002 4:02:34 PM PDT by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
Running to get my gloves....... :)
73 posted on 06/24/2002 4:03:09 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 4ourprogeny
Evolution Is Biologically Impossible And it is.

Therefore all dogs should look the same, because human devised breeding techniques which "evolve" the species into useful creatures like sheepdogs and poodles should be impossible. i.e. All Dogs Are Wolves

74 posted on 06/24/2002 4:03:27 PM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved:
Do you deny the existance of SO MANY genes that are identical between SO MANY different species INCLUDING MAN?

Why is that - how can SO MANY things be found IN MAN and also SO MANY animals?

HOW IS IT that animals have eyes, brains, hearts and LUNGS like we do - and YET we can think and reason - YET the animals have 100% of what we have physiologically?

WHY is it that NO LIFEFORMS arose out of compounds other than carbon and didn't make use of GENES (which contain those 'blueprints' passed around from various species for eyes and brains and other 'complex systems'.)?

LIFE on earth has *more* of a common denominator than even the 'creationists' can conceive.

To believe as they do - they must *actually* place limits on God's abilities and God's notion of the universe and ignore his many laws that the universe he created obeys.

They are instead imposing their own narrow, restricted view of nature *and* of God on God and his wonderful and many-splendored creation ...

75 posted on 06/24/2002 4:03:33 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Libertarians don't own a monopoly on pot..........
76 posted on 06/24/2002 4:04:15 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
The replicator. The specific form is just an implementation detail

Ok. For those of us without the benefit of your scientific knowlege, explain what the replicator is, and what would be required to design it. Thanks.

77 posted on 06/24/2002 4:04:30 PM PDT by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: berned
The whole gamut of eyes exists, from simple light-sensitive spots on the skin (which humans retain, by the way) all the way up through the wonders of nature sported by eagles. Every step in the development of the eye is still represented by extent creatures. The eye was one of the very first of the "irreducible complexity" arguments to fall -- Darwin, himself, showed the steps in the evolution of the eye.
78 posted on 06/24/2002 4:04:58 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
The main thing that made me NOT believe in evolution [I never would believe in that BS anyway] is that living forms decay back into dirt after they die.

And why would that fact make you NOT believe in evolution? In the survival of the fittest, it is eat or be eaten. Even in death, the remains are usually devoured by something.

79 posted on 06/24/2002 4:05:05 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: berned
we see simple eyes in many still living beings. Not all eyes are the same. Many are just collections of light sensitive cells. You can follow a chain of complexity to humans or even to more complex eyes than our own, say, a Hawk or Eagle.
80 posted on 06/24/2002 4:05:30 PM PDT by The Mike Device
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-342 next last

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.

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