Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
What a diaper-load. Anybody that uses the term "Darwinist" is by definition a Creationist.
Thank you for your insightful comment. I can't see how anyone could possible argue against your pure logic.
mark for later
.
You overlook signator 2 of Creationist Weasel Detection: not capitalisiing Creationist.
Fact, Fable, and Darwin By Rodney Stark
I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist
There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years. The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible. Not just unlikely but impossible.
One of the things I find curious is that for natural selection to work at the present time both nucleic acids and proteins must be present. Theoretically, they must have 'evolved' at the same time since they function interdependently, not independently.
The people on FreeRepublic who defend Evolution seem to principally argue from an Ad Hominen stance. Get used to it. Sigh.
These so-called "crevo" threads serve as a perfect example of the extra-scientific nature of the "debate".
Well, what he means is the whole concept of "Darwinist" and Darwin as the leader of some sort of religion or cult, and "The Origin of Species" as some sort of Bible, is a fictional strawman created by the Creationists.
Really Darwin and "The Origin of Species" while certainly respected, isn't that big of a deal; most evolutionists are too busy out in the field doing practical work digging up fossils or studying flora and fauna; they aren't sitting around re-reading Origin of Species for the 100th time.
Thanks for the ping. Pure creationist thread, so I won't ping the evo list. However, it's tagged "crevolist" for the archives. If things should heat up and require the ping list, let me know. Otherwise, I think this thread probably belongs on the religion forum.
Thank you for your insightful comment. I can't see how anyone could possible argue against your pure logic.
Methinks balrog666 is a Vulcan incognito.
And there's a reason why Relativity is still called "The Theory of Relativity" though it's been experimentally proven and has a wide variety of practical uses in science.
The basic problem is the scientific definition of "theory" has little resemblance to the misunderstanding of the definition of "theory" to the scientifically illiterate public.
What the average Creationist thinks the definition of "theory" is, a scientist would call a "hypothesis" not a theory.
Man is not smart enough to understand, completely, God world.
Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang, as well as evolution? This "either or" logic doesn't hold water, specially for those who believe in a non-denominational God.
I guess it is harder for bibiophiles, as well as koranophiles, since Big Bang and evolution negate their point of view. But, in my view, it only serves to reinforce my belief in God. Who/what other force could have come up with something so fantastic?
Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang, as well as evolution? This "either or" logic doesn't hold water, specially for those who believe in a non-denominational God.
I guess it is harder for bibliophiles, as well as koranophiles, since Big Bang and evolution negate their point of view. But, in my view, it only serves to reinforce my belief in God. Who/what other force could have come up with something so fantastic?
I've long been an admirer of Fred Hoyle. And I don't believe that Fred would declare the atomic weight of hydrogen to be 4, when it is 1.00797.
The atomic weight of helium is 4. Someone mixed these up. And the mixup does present difficulties to the creation of carbon thesis contained therein.
That said, I've bookmarked this for further study because it does have some interesting points.
This is eloquent? This is ignorance. Darwin spent no time advocating atheism. He cited and tied together the already voluminous evidence known in his day, presenting the inescapable conclusion that the organisms of Earth are related by common descent and have varied from each other by the operation of variation and natural selection.
This favorable evidence has only exploded in volume since the 19th century. To try to refute the theory by the logical fallacy of arguing from motive (while citing no evidence even for said motive) is ridiculous.
Mine is: "I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist" is as transparent as "I write as neither a follower of Jesus or Mohammed (Peace be upon him)"
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.