| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
The buffoon loon croons in June, underneath a big white Moon! Makes little girls swoon to his tune!
Gee, Fletcher, whatever you've got is catching...
Which can often be true. Flip 30 coins, and note that they will not come up all heads (technically, there's less than a one in a billion chance). You could repeat this every day for the rest of your life, and you would almost certainly never get all heads. But if you could do this every day for a billion years, you would be virtually guaranteed of eventually getting 30 heads. So yes, over long periods of time rare events are more likely to occur than over short periods, and over a sufficiently long time rare events can be "guaranteed" to happen.
This is my point. This is natural evolution.
We are dealing with after the fact evidence. Should we make up stories about how all these events could have overcome the impossible and happened by chance – or step back, look at the big picture and see the intelligence behind it all.
No, I don't. I asked for the evidence, as any sensible fan of science and reason would. Show me the evidentiary basis for the calculation of the odds, and I will attempt to follow the details of the argument.
Abiogenesis is the foundation of natural evolution
No it isn't. Only a tiny minority of working micro-biologists ever dabble with this subject, and none that I am familiar with claim such musings are science. Even Darwin was quite careful to claim nothing more than there was good evidence to believe that old defunct species gave rise to new living species. No claim about ultimate origins need be considered in examining this thesis, nor do any but a tiny minority of working micro-biologists do so, even by way of speculation.
– DNA and a single cell are far more complex than a 707.
Yea, so?
Would math equations really satisfy you or would you poke more holes and skew information to justify your belief?
I would look at it with a critical eye. That's why we call it science, rather than, say, fairy tales. Because we play with all our cards on the table, so others, who are suspicious by trade, can duplicate our work and our reasoning. You may be right, and you may be truthful, and you may be honest in your work and your reasoning. But if you don't anti up in the coin of the realm, you don't get in the game.
In the beginning, nature…
And the prophets, Darwin, Dawkins…
Pages of their bible are printed in textbooks in public schools…
Yes, let us separate state and religion…
The creationist equivalent of a drive-by shooting. Nothing substantive, just verbal bullets.
And your evidence for this would be what?
You don't win an argument in the realm of reason by repeating it over and over. Demonstrate the impossibility of life forming up as a result of natural processes. Then we'll proceed with the rest of this syllogism.
EVOLUTION is a L-I-E invented by S-A-T-A-N, and all those that reject the truth embrace it to their destruction.
Uhh, I'm not sure what you are saying. On hundreds of occasions, when I was younger and had time, I would go out and look for fossils, dig for fossils. Yes, there were areas that had a lot, but the mojority of the places I looked had NONE. So your arguement to the fact that there are a lot of places we havn't "Mined" for fossils proves my point even more. That fossils are 1) Rare 2) have to be "mined" under untold thousands/millions of years of sediment. 3) that for one given square foot of ground, given the time the Universe has existed(first point of my first post) you will find jack squat by way of fossils. But, that's amazing considering there has been life present on that one square foot for a very, very, very, very, very, very, ..., very long time.
If you are a creationist, please, pretty please, explain how the 6,000 year old universe can have photons that have traveled for Billions of years from distant Quasars and galaxies?
This is called the Strong Anthropic argument. It is not compelling. Maybe there are lots of universes, and ours happens to be one whose laws allow for life. See Hawkings new book if you want the lowdown about how this argument is faring these days. Maybe there is an intelligent cook who bangs together promising universes. How does that butter my toast? How does that prevent evolution from being a perfectly good explanation for what I can see around me? How does that demonstrate that I should consider such a creature a benevolent and trustworthy object of my adoration? How does it answer any useful question whatsoever?
This is compelling evidence? This?
There is no common sense involved in making up a story about how things happened, and persistently making the claim that that's how it must have been…
Lazy mutt (American slang for "lurking")
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.