Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
Actually you are wrong.
Each new "missing link" does create two new gaps. What you failed to take into consideration is the "missing link" REMOVES a gap and you forget to apply the subtraction.
You tried to claim it was exponential when the claim is merely: every missing link creates two new gaps which is absolutely true (in concept)
This is a logic exercise - I am not arguing about the fossil record.
You're arguing semantics. It's what I said. The function outputs n+1 gaps and not 2n when you put in n fossils.
You've already admitted your argument is purely semantic. Now go find somebody you fool.
correction made.
KenHam is taller
oh, good grief, billions of dead things, buried in rock layers all over the world...
You need more evidence than that?
Lookat the continents shape, they were once one, like the Bible says
Darwin seemed to think so. At least that is what he said.
And I agree with him.
But I do believe it is possible for a person to be a genuine Christian, and still believe in evolution. I just think they are mistaken this issue.
Read the sentence above and note how the author of this article is inclined to elevate "knowledge" to the level of "truth" and "love," as if the former were an essential attribute of God.
I don't know which traditions this fellow is referring to, but he does not speak for biblical texts wherein the essence of God is set forth. Omniscience (knowledge of all things) is an attribute that is not trumpeted, but given, just like the laws of nature that operate apart from our knowledge. Nor is "knowledge" a moral imperative where man is concerned. In fact it is, according to the earliest biblical accounts, a quest for "knowledge" that lead to a great divorce between God and man. As a result we cannot even be sure of eyewitness testimony from others, let alone ourselves.
According to the biblical texts, "Love" is how the Creator would be revealed in essence, and it is well-demonstrated in the fact that He allows human science to soil His creation with so much blather.
The author of this article sets up a straw man in asserting that faith seeks proof of God in the unknown. Besides, even Meyerowitz has not fully explained how flowers came into being.
Pure science does nothing more than substantiate the fact there is a God who created, and who sustains, the universe we observe to this day. Unfortunately the philosophy of evolution has somehow gained credibility as if it were pure science.
Actually you are arguing semantics and I am arguing logic.
There is no question each new missing link creates two new gaps - no matter how you try to word it:
A-------Z one gap a-z
A---M---Z two new gaps a-m and m-z (a-z no longer exists)
A-G-M---Z two new gaps a-g and g-m (a-m no longer exists)
A-G-M-Q-Z two new gaps m-q and q-z (m-z no longer exists)
A-C-G-M-Q-Z two new gaps a-c and c-g (a-g no longer exists)
ad infinitum
Wrong.
The function outputs (n+2)-1 gaps
Who is your target audience here? The person dumb enough to be fooled? Is this person allowed to stay up this late?
I have correctly stated the output of the function for all values of n, not just n = 1. The general solution is always preferred to special cases.
I gave an example of adding three fossils and getting out four gaps and cited that the function is f(n) = n + 1, not n * 2. Please show for the case of n = 50 where my version is wrong and yours is correct.
Now you're showing your math ignorance. Functions don't output complex expressions. Complex expressions go in. Single values go out.
You are incompetent to discuss this.
Absolutely amazing. We can't even decide on how to classify the evidence, yet insist it is clear enough to support the theory beyond any questioning.
Any mainline church would accept my view.
AIG hand waving is not evidence. What is your evidence for a global flood?
It can't be fossils, which are in chronological order and dated over millions of years.
You would have to use evidence besides the evidence that demonstrates AIG nonsense to be false.
"Unfortunately the philosophy of evolution has somehow gained credibility as if it were pure science."
Do you ever go off script? Saying the same thing repeatedly makes it no more true than repeating 2=3.
Biology is pure science. Evolution is a fact. Creation is not in evolution. Deal with it.
He will carry on like this until beddybye time. LOL
Some of the others are never wrong as well, but they'll end it at some point if only by sneaking off in a barrage of distractions and accusations. The aforenamed are never outlasted and never halfway plausible.
It is not necessary to have an accurate classification system at all. It is a convenience to decide what has descended from what. Since some could be in two different categories, it supports the theory rather than weakens it.
If we were to find fossils that reflected only what we see today, that would be evidence for creationism. Since we don't, creationism is false.
I have been debating this looniness for years. Nothing surprises me. What I have noticed is the ID people tend to try to disguise what their positions are. This allows them to maintain credibility a bit longer.
But after a short time the wheels come off the wagon.
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.