Posted on 11/09/2004 11:21:22 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Not true. There are many different instances of speciation: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"
Pay close attention to Section 5 part 6. There are plenty of examples right there, with more not listed.
The pictures looked very cool, though, you have to admit! (I perused it while waiting for my car to be worked on Friday.)
Somewhat seriously, it would be very difficult for the average layperson to review this kind of stuff, and not believe an organization like Nat'l Geographic and all the scientific work they cite.
No, I'm not a Darwinist, nor strict Creationist. But, IMO, this debate always feels like very, very deep waters that intimidates most people, myself somewhat included.
-- Joe
Ping here too.
For discussion's sake, your last sentence may indeed by accurate (who knows?). I'm having trouble understanding where you stand on this issue, but that theory is not far off from my own thinking.
But you seem to contradict yourself earlier by saying (and I paraphrase) 1) evolutionary theory doesn't infer random acts of chance with respect to the existence of species, and 2). evolution may follow the "free will" of chemistry. So which is it?
A "Dear God, here we go again" ping.
Yeah, I get it ... so did Crick, Behe, ..... etc.
The combinatorics of evolution is impossible.
You're WRONG you big nyah nyah! :D
J\K
You asked this...
Tell me: If the National Geographic ran an article on Newtonian physics, in which it brushed aside the arguements of those pushing antigravity and inertialess drives while at the same time brushing aside the problems with Newtonian physics (such as reletivistic issues); whoudl you still consider the article to be a poor one?
And I guess the answer is that if you want to address a defined group of people who don't understand or accept Newtonian Physics, and yet you fail to account for questions that group has consistently articulated, then yes, it would be a poor article producing more heat than light. (In Newtonian terms)
The point is, rational dialogue places strict demands on those who would approach her. I've found many creationist arguments to fall far short of reason. I've found an equal percentage of evolutionist apologetic to be poorly executed and unpursuasive.
If evolutionists are going to win over the half of the world that rejects their teachings despite a monopoly on education on the matter, they will, some day, need to raise the bar on quality at their own presses. After all, they are the ones with all the capability for abstract thought, why not require them to achieve the higher standard of discourse first?
> "Dear God, here we go again"
Well, I for one am done with this one. Strictly speaking, there's not much point to these threads... the Creationists will never accept reason, the Evolutionists will never accept fantasy, so we just stand here and bark at each other. I feel it's important to put in a few barks in support of evolution and reason, so fifty years from now historians will be able to look back and see that conservatives truely weren't all superstitious boobs... even though that faction did leads to the liberals taking over the world.
LOL
A) Could it be? Yes. That still doesn't change the fact that species to new species evolution has ever been witnessed by a single scientist.
B) There are fruit flies that have a life cycle of 8 hours. The time frame is relevant, but it is also worth noting that in the 100-some years these flies have been used by scientists, not one has ever seen a fruit fly give birth to a completely different species of fruit fly or, say, a monkey.
I'm not saying that evolution isn't a possibility. What I am saying is that it is odd that scientists are willing to put their own "faith" into accepting evolution as fact when they know they can't replicate this theory in the lab. It's one of those irony-thingies, because "faith" for Creationism is dismissed out of hand with exactly the same scientific proof as the creation of new species by evolution.
And the evidence against it is generally discarded, even by proponents. I again use the "it used its wings as a net to trap bugs" explanation of how birds first flew.
Once it was disproven (mostly by an aerospace engineer) the proponents said "Oh, well, the theory served its purpose."
That was a total straw man argument!
"free will" does not imply randomness. God may have put into place the necessary chemicals for life and then sat back to watch, knowing that life would develop but not concerned with whether it had two legs or eight, only that at some point, life would evolve to a level that it would be able to understand and communicate with the 'creator'. OTOH, he may have not cared and just got tired of his experiment and went off to bigger and better concepts.
But will they use Google?
Liberals and conservatives will never understand each other ... and evolutionists and creationists will never understand each other ...
Each accuses the other of doing what they each do ...
But ...
GEORGE W BUSH WAS RE-ELECTED! ... and we can all celebrate that good news together !!!!!!!!!!
OK… But some ‘use’ TOE to explain everything and since TOE excludes ID in any form or fashion, what is left but ‘random acts of chance’?
Given such sentiments, it’s not surprising that discipline after discipline is now being “Darwinized.” Cosmology has its self-reproducing black holes governed by cosmological natural selection (see Lee Smolin’sThe Life of the Cosmos). Ethics and psychology have now become evolutionary ethics and evolutionary psychology (see Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal and Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works). Even the professional schools are being overtaken, so that we now have books with titles like Evolutionary Medicine (medicine), Managing the Human Animal (business), Economics as an Evolutionary Science (economics), and Evolutionary Jurisprudence (law). And let’s not forget religious studies, in which God genes (i.e., genes that cause us to believe in God irrespective of whether God exists) and the Darwinian roots of religious belief have become a growth industry (see, for instance, Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought).Such enthusiasm for Darwinism might be endearing except that its proponents are deadly earnest. For instance, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Daniel Dennett views religious believers who dissuade their children from believing Darwinian evolution as such a threat to the social order that they need to be caged in zoos or quarantined (both metaphors are his). Because of the myth of invincibility that now surrounds it, Darwinism has become monopolistic and imperialistic. Though often associated with “liberalism,” Darwinism as practiced today knows nothing of the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill. “Darwinian liberalism” tolerates no dissent and regards all criticism of Darwinism’s fundamental tenets as false and reprehensible.
- William A. Dembski
No one said it was possible.
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.