Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
It's a consequence of the math. I'm sure I can solicit some textbook recommendations if you like.
No, if I believed in ID I'd say that everything had been planned down to the last detail. Evolution allows for random chance. I like to think that God got the ball rolling and then let the Universe grow on its own, and gave us the free will to explore its origins and find the facts on our own.
One again, simply explain to me from the theory of evolution how the five senses came about from single-celled creatures that had no idea they even needed such things?
Explain to me how and where emotions came from? They serve no purpose in evolutionary theory. Why fear before even knowing what fear is? Why be happy or sad when there is no basis for such philosophical underpinnings? Why isn't there a single "super race" that has already destroyed all other animals under "natural selection"? How did so many different varieties of species come about rather than consolidated species?
And the list goes on. Yet evolutionists can NOT answer these questions because answering these questions points out the silliness of the religion of evolution. Evolution survives in America for 2 years, black robed lawyers who believe they are gods decreed it, and people have been indoctrinated to accept the secular fundamentalist view of evolution rather than THINKING through evolution's absurd and silly leaps of blind miraculous leaps of faith.
I fully admit that ID does not meet the rules of science, and I admit that evolution is the best theory that science has come up with to explain life, etc. However, evolution is not a fact (it is an educated guess and nothing more) and it does have a lot of flaws, including the laws of probability (that is the most obvious one to me and many others). Speaking of evolution as a fact is ignorant.
Thanks. I've never seen an explanation for that bit of nasty. I remember now posting to Narby what turned out to be a futile attempt to prevent his loss of faith.
So what the author is saying is that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory".
...A 'Theory' (or 'Paradigm' in Kuhn's esteemed work) is overturned by the accumulation of observations that cannot be accounted for by the existing Theory or Paradigm, NOT by the simple positing of another speculative Theory.
You made no point worth refuting. Those that know read, shake their heads and go on.
Google is your friend. Try 'scientific theory definition'. It will make you look a lot less stupid.
My goodness you are a slow learner. The whole buiness of science is to keep improving its understanding. The process is iteartive.
But you are covertly implying something that simply isn't true. You are implying that everything is science is mush and it will all have a completely different shape tomorrow. the actual progress of science is more like a pixel fade, in which things are seen with more and more detail as the resolution deepens.
Gravity was first explored by Galileo, who made some decent quantitative observations; then by Kepler who discovered that orbits were best described as eliptical; thne by Newton, who foune formulae that perfectly describe the motions of objects at familiar distances and speeds; then by Einstein who extended the theory of gravity to deal with extreme velocities. We do not yet have a comprehensive theory of gravity, but what we have learned has not contradicted Galileo; it has just improved the resolution of the image.
The same applies to biology. Current research is improving our understanding of life, but it is not contradicting the basic picture discovered by Darwin. It is just adding more detail.
It is fantasy to believe that the age of the earth will suddenly be found to be a few thousand years, or that living things are not related by descent.
Let’s move away from the daft idea that a basic organism suddenly popped into existence with a spine. That’s a pretty complicated structure to come about in one fell swoop.
Suppose, on the other hand, an organism mutates a light-sensitive organ. Just a basic little thing. That basic ‘eye’ enables to move towards light where there’s more food (you can use your imagination to work out what it might do with it). More food = better chance of survival and the ‘eye’ gets passed on to the population through breeding. Over time this eye gets more complicated.
Now, that’s not so ridiculous is it? Maybe you would grasp the idea of evolution better if you didn’t think basic cells suddenly grew the complicated organs that we, the most powerful life forms on the planet, have today.
Biological systems exhibit intelligence and demonstrate this intelligence by creating complexity.
I could say the exact same thing to you (please offer some testable hypotheses) and then it just degrades into a circular discussion of enormously unedifying proportions.
Interesting name you are blessed with. Did you know the book of Malachi (same name diff spelling) is about God telling us He is not pleased when we do not obey His commands. He will repay those who disregard Him.
I tried with Narby too.
It was strange with Elsie. He didn't really gloat, but he seemed strangely happy with Narby's loss of faith. Since then I've wondered seriously if Elsie wasn't a DU troll. His actions certainly didn't fit my idea of what a Christian would do in those circumstances.
Maybe I should simplify things a bit.
You see, when one is asleep, and not dreaming, time flies. There is nothingness all around. A state of 'black peace'. Perhaps this very same unconscious 'black peace' awaits death too. And a fear of this thought of nothingness after death perhaps caused human societies to invent the idea of religion, so as to attempt to give meaning to the happenings after death?
Existence is indeed preferable to its alternative smply because of the rarity wth which it seems to happen. Those very probabilities are very low, as the Creationists oft parrot, and if you are lucky enough to be favoured by them, then why not strive to keep the 'moment' longer?
Feelings of love, companionship and bonding are evolutionary mutations that vastly improve chances of survival. Social beings, like mankind, are the most successful biological creatures.
By the term 'satiate'(to which no meaning exists as far as I know), I presume you mean the opposite of 'insatiate'. I need you to elaborate for me to attempt to provide a satisfactory explanation. That "luck" referred to earlier is the very probabilities mentioned therein.
Name a specific gap that evolution will never be able to address, and tell us what gives you confidence that it will never be addressed.
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.