Posted on 12/30/2013 10:37:59 AM PST by Olog-hai
Randomly change, delete, reorder or add a letter to this sentence and tell me that more information is available than before!
Yale survey: Average tea partier has better science comprehension than general population
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3080735/posts
forget evolution — it just doesn’t matter one way or another.
It’s “anthropogenic global warming” that needs to be debunked for once and for all.
If the AGW hoax is finally destroyed, then they still need the old Darwinistic one to fall back on.
“And you can guarantee that next year every candidate with an (R) after their name will be asked to articulate their opinion on this issue.”
A simple answer for those, like myself, that are both religious and of scientific inclination, is “Yes, I do. Contrary to uneducated opinion, evolution does not explain the origins of life. It merely explains how life can adapt to a rather hostile conditions in the universe. It’s a rather brilliant mechanism, wouldn’t you say?”
A better answer for those that may not agree is “I’ve never studied such a broad topic myself. I leave speculation and research on those matters to trained scientists. My opinion, regardless of what you think it is, has no validity nor impact on our nation at large.”
For those goosestepping morons that promote teaching Evolution in public schools : “Talk to me once our schools produce students that excel in biology and genetics first. Then we can talk about teaching a unifying theory like evolution then. What you propose is akin to teaching a new student physics by way of the Theory of Relativity. There is nothing wise about that.”.
You’ll then see drool pour from the Presstitue’s mouth as they’re trained only to speak, react, and attack to an expected reply.
I cannot begin to tell you the number of idiot liberals I’ve run into think that the Theory of Evolution explains the origin of life itself ... as if it were some kind of concrete gospel as to how life originated, not how it has adapted over billions of years.
We’ve only begun to scratch the surface as to the scientific explanations of life. Your average programmed liberal tends to think of evolution, make that all of science in general, as a catch all to invalidate religion. That drives me batty as it cheapens the science ... much like what global warming has done to climatology.
/rant off
That’s as it should be. Evolution is a bunch of BS.
This is the fault of our public schools and universities that have for years indoctrinated our children with the so called theory of evolution.
It is with this indoctrination, that our children, even those from conservative Christian homes have been brainwashed to turn their backs on the Truth of Creationism.
We must begin electing true conservative officials who will banish evolution from all of our schools and begin to teach the Truth.
Continued attacks from the Leftist ivory tower on those who “cling to religion”.
Nice strawman!!! Instead, generate a random string of text characters that is equal in length to the sentence you wrote. For each position in the random string, compare the character to the one in your sentence. If it matches, lock it in place, if not generate a new random character. Repeat for each position in the random string. Repeat this procedure multiple times. After a surprisingly low number of repetitions, you will “randomly” generate a meaningful sentence.
That’s the problem with most counter-evolution arguments. You focus on the random aspect, but forget about the non-random aspect of evolution. It’s not just throwing random bits of DNA around, you know. It also includes natural selection (which is non-random), which means that those combinations that produce biologically viable organisms tend to become increasingly common because those are the organisms that reproduce. The combinations that are less viable lead to organisms that fail to reproduce, so these combinations are weeded out.
Please cite the " lock it in place" analog...and no, natural selection does not "lock" the code. That's the problem, any reasonably aware individual knows the more complex, the easier it breaks.
Ah, but the original sentence had meaning,
and any modification of it would REDUCE information,
most likely to the detriment of the sentence (organism).
The natural selection has to be based on “original” amounts of information
in competition with the “modified” information.
The “modification” has to increase information, and due to the rarity of a positive or even neutral mutation, there is not enough time, even with all the magic billions of years fairy dust, for enough positive modifications to produce a molecules to man series of events.
BTW, you’re using a variation of Huxley’s monkeys in your example.
Of course that argument was definitively refuted because it didn’t accurately reflect real biological processes; namely, once the monkey’s finger comes off the key, the letter comes off the paper.
Huxley’s dodge was the he was describing a creation machine.
The fittest survive.
What is meant by the fittest?
Not the strongest; not the cleverest—
Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive.
There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive.
“Fitness,” then, is only another name for “survival.”
Darwinism:
That survivors survive.
- Charles Fort (Book of the Damned, pp. 23-24 - 1919)
Well, we know that homosexuality leads to extinction.
There are sections of the human genome that are actually viral DNA from viruses that invaded human cells some time in the past.
that has been verified, how?
Bingo. They are starting early for the 2016 election.
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.