Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Problem With Evolution
ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-341 next last
To: DaveLoneRanger

I heard a talk show host explain intelligent design like this: if you see a painting of the Monalisa you know that some artist had to create it. No matter how many years are given, the painting couldn't materialize by itself. So how much more must there be an artist that made the real Monalisa.


251 posted on 09/26/2005 11:59:54 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Me; These are all many names for the one infinite beyond the absolute, and mans attempt to comprehend it.

You; No they aren't.


I say they are.

Wolf
252 posted on 09/27/2005 12:02:57 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Evolution should be kept a closely guarded secret, among
the enlightened practioners of your sect or cult what have you. Evolution means and individual can look forward to eternity in the tar pits of time, all your happy memories will be in the rearview mirror, and nothingness awaits
your eventual arrival.


253 posted on 09/27/2005 12:14:41 AM PDT by claptrap (optional tagline under re-consideration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: claptrap
Okay stalagmite is a mound of deposited minerals. Stalactite forms in a downward direction.

Hooray, you can use a dictionary.

In Colorado there is a place called Cave of the Winds I have been there many times and they can form quite rapidly, blocking out whole sections of open areas.

Nice try, but iron oxide sediments deposited by recent floods are hardly the same as rapidly growing calcium carbonate stalagmites/stalactites. For an in-depth analysis of the processes taking place at Cave of the Winds (to correct your faulty presumptions about them), see GENESIS OF CAVE OF THE WINDS, MANITOU SPRINGS, COLORADO. Also see this webpage about the cave, which clearly (albeit ungrammatically) states that, "Once the cave became dry and all formations ceased growing, which means all the damages will stay as they are now.", and this confirms the findings of the linked paper (and further contradicts your claims).

The abundance or redeposited minerals should suggest the transitory nature of geological formations, if earthquakes dont do it for you.

What are you rambling about here? No one disputes that geologic formations can and do change over time. Duh. But none of this helps support your original assertions about fossils.

Speaking of which, you have failed to answer 16 of the 17 questions put to you concerning your assertions. Please remedy that oversight now. Pay special attention to the question which asks you what in the heck your claims about cave formations -- even if true, which they are not -- would have to do with fossil evidence being, in your words, "tripe". And please attempt to remain coherent, and don't wander any further afield from your attempted point.

254 posted on 09/27/2005 1:18:28 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Liar?

Yes.

I am just taking material from right here on these boards from 'your side'

I see. And where do you hallucinate that you took the following from "these boards from my side"?

All your observations will be bogus and rejected by the peer review board (80% of them) unless it points to a preordained conclusion (that comes from the high council of the peer review board)
This is a slanderous misrepresentation of our actual position. It's a lie. Don't pretend that you're just quoting *us* when you write this slander, it's your own creation.

If no favor is being done to conservatism no favor with this childishness, then by the totality of the material here on these boards, we are all in the same club, (well I cant include you account I have not read all of your material). If your are honest you will own that for your 'side'.

I am honest when I state that no, I will not "own that", because it's not true. And I stand by my assessment of how bad it make conservatives look when some of them grossly misrepresent science and those who practice it. It only reinforces the common stereotype of conservatives as being know-nothing, anti-science, anti-intellectual yahoos. Do you think that helps attract more people to the conservative movement? Quite the contrary. I personally know quite a few people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservatism, but who are unwilling to associate with the movement because they see too many conservatives who do actually act that way. It's the same as how many people are driven away from liberalism by the antics of the hate-America-first crowd among the liberals.

And no one is one my side but me.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who insists on replying to my individual responses to another individual by making pronouncements about "your gang" and "your side"...

255 posted on 09/27/2005 1:35:53 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: claptrap
Calcim carbonate is formed from carbonic acids leaching minerals from soil and rocks, underground there is also sulfuric acids combined with a slurry of other materials.

That's nice. Are you going to get around to actually making a point?

With all these possible interactions millions of years are not required for petrification,

No one said it was. Are you going to get around to actually making a point?

On Mt Evans there are bristlecone pines that are half petrified and some completely petrified and some are still growing they are well above the treeline( elevation at which trees grow )

So? Point?

so I still insist that stone can form rapidly, by my own observation, and Ive seen seashells stuck in half granite half quartz rocks way above 9000ft which suggests tremendous geologic activity

Again, so?

which would render layer dating useless

No it wouldn't. Nice try. I'm sorry, but flinging in a "conclusion" after a batch of disconnected and irrelevant statements does not constitute an actual argument, or support for your strange beliefs.

yet thats how most supposed fossils are dated.

No, actually, it isn't. Where did you "learn" this stuff, a creationist pamphlet?

256 posted on 09/27/2005 1:46:09 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: claptrap
If weeding out is such a preferable occurance why on earth the hue and cry to "save " endangered species?

Because humanity's goals are different from nature's processes. Floods are natural too, but that doesn't mean *we* need to appreciate New Orleans being underwater. Plagues are natural, but we fight against them. Forest fires rejuvenate forests (in the long run), but we still don't like fires burning up our houses.

Was this *really* so hard for you to figure out on your own?

Only because it is man who is doing the weeding?

We generally don't like natural extinctions either, so no.

Why dont the endangered species adapt and variants occur to overcome their specific threat?

Some do manage to, some don't. It's a matter of the nature and speed of the particular threats to survival.

For example : gorillas why are they stuck being lousy gorillas

Gorillas are not "lousy". They are highly adapted to their ecological niche.

they are rapidly dying off, no variant, no sub-species to replace them.

There *are* variants and subspecies of gorilla. *New* subspecies, however, take more time to arise than gorillas are likely to have, given the speed at which we are destroying their habitats, not to mention directly killing them (via poaching, etc.)

Where is the evolution

It's occurring all the time, even now.

why arent they becoming smarter

What makes you think they aren't? And what makes you think that "becoming smarter" is the only effective adaptation to loss of habitat? Your "thinking" on this subject is very simplistic.

they have had billions and billions of years why the heck are they stuck as gorillas?

They've only been gorillas for around 0.1% of that "billions and billions of years" timespan. They haven't always *been* gorillas, and thus they're not "stuck".

Any other silly questions?

257 posted on 09/27/2005 2:02:34 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
[All of your posts on this thread have utterly reaked of "mocking superiority and smug complacency"]

Thats wrong, I don't see that there, thats Your misinterpretation.

Uh huh... So you don't see the following as mocking superiority?

no feeling thinking entity could have created such a faithful creature following the edicts of select group of humanoids blest with knowledge far superior to any bible thumping pew warmer.
Or:
Why not postulate your junk science to mind numbed robots of the leftist communists who desire not God but are determined to be gods to themselves.
Or:
Im not counting on just the here and now for happiness sadly thats all you have.
So you don't see "smug complacency" in the following?
Face it the earth and sky cry out the existence of God, you and the evo-fools just seek to deny God the honor and worship only he deserves.
Or:
Besides fossil evidence is tripe stalagtites can form in as little time as fourteen years and petrify.
And do you agree that RightWingProfessor's bemusement makes him akin to Hitler?
258 posted on 09/27/2005 2:16:40 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
[Your complete failure to actually understand the first thing about "my gang" is obvious.]

That may be,

It is.

but all I have to go on is what your gang puts up here.

...then perhaps you would be wise to discuss what we actually "put up here", and stop flying off into your fantasies about what we might think or what our goals might be, based on your presumptions and not things we've actually written.

BTW if you don't like 'gang' give me a term you do like.

How about addressing me as an individual, instead of as part of some imaginary "gang"?

259 posted on 09/27/2005 2:19:45 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: fabian; DaveLoneRanger
I heard a talk show host explain intelligent design like this: if you see a painting of the Monalisa you know that some artist had to create it.

...because humans are known to produce oil paintings. Thus when you find a painting, it is reasonable to presume that a human produced it.

Living things, meanwhile, are produced by nature without human intervention or design. Getting a clue yet?

No matter how many years are given, the painting couldn't materialize by itself.

Because paintings are not the sort of thing that nature tends to produce. Living things *are*.

So how much more must there be an artist that made the real Monalisa.

Faulty conclusion, based on faulty reasoning. How many living things have you seen produced by artists? None.

How many living things have been produced naturally, even within human observation? Billions.

If you want to use inductive reasoning, and obviously you do, then the conclusion is obvious -- it's just the opposite of the one you arrived at.

Furthermore, evolutionary processes provably increase complexity, so the whole ID "gosh, that's really complex, it must have been designed" argument goes right out the window as well. And it doubly falls flat when you realize that the complexity of life is *beyond* human design capacity. This doesn't argue *for* a designer, it argues *against* one, especially since evolutionary processes routinely produce results that are *beyond* human design capabilities (and often even beyond human understanding). See for example this discussion of the creativity of genetic algorithms.

260 posted on 09/27/2005 2:34:48 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: claptrap
Evolution should be kept a closely guarded secret, among the enlightened practioners of your sect or cult what have you.

So many errors, so little time...

Evolution means and individual can look forward to eternity in the tar pits of time, all your happy memories will be in the rearview mirror, and nothingness awaits your eventual arrival.

You are yet again mistaken. Evolutionary biology makes no statement about the possible nature of an afterlife.

Don't quite your day job.

261 posted on 09/27/2005 2:38:04 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Teaching evolution as a scientific theory is fine as long as they also make the kids understand the scientific fact that science can't explain the origin of things like atoms.


262 posted on 09/27/2005 2:38:57 AM PDT by Pipeline (The lessons can be harsh. All are repeated until learned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
LOL! What a silly remark. Obviously the most interesting, complex, and diversified mammals reproduce sexually, and the theory of evolution and speciation is supposed to account for the existence of sexually-reproducing organisms.

There is nothing silly about it at all. Sexual reproduction evolved long before mammals evolved. The ancestors of mammals already reproduced sexually. There are no mammals that reproduce assexually.

>>I don't see the problem with different organs evolving in parallel. What would stop eyes evolving at the same time as the heart?)))

The organism would choke and die while trying on contact lenses. Continually silly...

First of all the basic heart could evolve before eyes even exist (and many organisms have no heart). Second, once the basic heart is in place there is nothing stopping the eyes evolving while the heart is also evolving. At no point would the organism choke and die.

Evos claim that speciation occurs in the wild. If speciation occurs by accident, it ought to be able to be duplicated on purpose.

What do you mean by on purpose? All you can do is sit and wait. You can't speed up the process.

As for time, domesticated animals have been bred to specfication for thousands of years on separate continents. That is, a laboratory of significant history. You'd think, under ideal conditions, that at least one accident would have happened.

No because first there is no reason to think domestication is ideal conditions for speciation, and second why is thousands of years sufficient time? What calculation have you based that on? Why not hundreds of years, or tens of thousands of years? The dog and wolf split over ten thousand years ago for example.

Not enough time, eh? Well, that's the stock answer. Billions and billions of years and it'll happen.

If the rate of speciation were as high as 1 new species per dozen species per 3000 years then that would imply over 100 new species worldwide per year. The fossil record does not bear this out, and neither does recorded history. So such a rate is obviously far too high.

263 posted on 09/27/2005 3:47:58 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms.

Wait a second!

These creationists are admitting that the major animal groups appeared "540 million years ago."

I thought they insisted the world is only 6,000 years old.

264 posted on 09/27/2005 4:01:38 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
[Thunderous applause!] I'm going to find a place for that in The List-O-Links, but I'm pondering what to call it. Probably "How speciation occurs" will suffice.
265 posted on 09/27/2005 4:25:02 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

While I'm no adherent of ID, I delight in the dependable way that they provoke the evos, and make them behave like inquisitionals with a recalcitrant heretic...patronize away.


266 posted on 09/27/2005 5:11:18 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
re: What do you mean by on purpose? All you can do is sit and wait. You can't speed up the process.)))

There are scientists attempting this in many places. A couple of years back a scientist at the U of Chicago named Wu claimed to have created a new species of fruit fly. "Speciation Occurs!" claimed the headline. It was discussed here on FR. And, reading the headline, I believed it for a moment. Why not? The scientist in question used microsurgical techniques to try and alter the DNA enough to bring about a fly that satisfied the criteria of a unique new species.

Put aside he notion that it's really kind of "cheating" to duplicate speciation by tampering with the basic programming through a kind of "intelligent design" by lab scientists.

It turned out, there was no fly at all. There were only "expectations" of a new species. Since then, I google up Wu and fruit flies to see if his expectations have ever borne fruit. (flies). None yet.

If long centuries of breeding livestock in geographic isolation for particular types--which is about the only long-term laboratory that we can look to--can't bring about a duplication of this process, it would seem that the humble fruit fly might have provided the experience. It's been used to study genetics (in labs all over the world) for more than two centuries, and is far less complex than a bird or mammal.

That evolution provides a good working theory for categorizing and analyizing is indisputable, and that's as far as the theory goes. There are a lot of paradigms that are useful and ultimately limited. In linguistics, understanding a sentence structure does not mean that you can *generate* a sentence, but that is an arcanity that may not signify...

267 posted on 09/27/2005 5:25:38 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

None of those idiots (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot)had any idea of evolution. Stalin thought genes and DNA didn't exist as per his pet "peasant scientist" Lysenko. Hardly a Scientific outlook.

Hitler was self described as a Catholic, and he sold the Holocaust to the German people (Catholic and Lutheran) as revenge for the killing of Christ.


268 posted on 09/27/2005 6:06:07 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
The problem with blaming the murders of Communism and National Socialism on Darwin, Evolution and Science is that they didn't kill their millions because they disagreed upon Scientific interpretation. The Communists didn't even believe in Darwinian evolution, preferring the unsupported hypothesis of Lamarkian evolution as a mechanism for "Homo Sapiens" the thinking man, to become "Homo Communista" the unthinking man. The Nationalist Socialists were Christian and they sold the holocaust to the German people (a Christian people) as revenge for the killing of Christ.

There is a mechanism for settling disputes in Science, as it pertains to observable phenomenon that can be measured. The only way to get a FINAL settlement of a dispute in religion is to kill the heretics; as there is no way to objectively settle their competing claims.
269 posted on 09/27/2005 6:20:44 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
There has been speciation events of fruit flies observed in the lab. And it wasn't through "microsurgical techniques" but through a chromosomal mutation. How could any surgery effect the offspring of the altered fly? You must think that modern Biologists believe in Lamarkian evolution.

Please don't lie. Especially such a stupid lie.
270 posted on 09/27/2005 6:24:02 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
What he suggests is to dishonor God and make himself a god and in turn influence others to become like him arrogant and decietful.

The mind boggles.

I'd settle for influencing them to remember 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.

Once they learn that, they're on the path to correct orthography and perdition. BWHAHAHA!

271 posted on 09/27/2005 7:09:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Where do you think the 1000 species of fruit fly on earth came from?


272 posted on 09/27/2005 7:13:51 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: AZConcervative
Actually most Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations.

This seems to be a balanced appraisal.

What I find significant is that, knowing that most scholars consider parts of the text you quoted to be a later interpolation, you posted it 'as is' to bolster your argument. I'm constantly being lectured by Christians about how, without their belief system, morality would be impossible, and then they do things that in my field would immediately get them a reputation for shady dealing, if not actual fraud.

273 posted on 09/27/2005 7:14:50 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Why is FR censoring mainstream science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Put aside he notion that it's really kind of "cheating" to duplicate speciation by tampering with the basic programming through a kind of "intelligent design" by lab scientists.

Ah, the old creationist catch-22.

Creationist: evolution isn't a scientific theory because you can't duplicate it in a lab

Scientist: Yes I can. Here, let me show you!

Creationist. That isn't evolution, it's ID, because it didn't happen naturally.

274 posted on 09/27/2005 7:21:56 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Ah, the old creationist catch-22.

Creationist: evolution isn't a scientific theory because you can't duplicate it in a lab

Scientist: Yes I can. Here, let me show you!

Creationist. That isn't evolution, it's ID, because it didn't happen naturally.<<

No fair Perfessor, you were using logic and reason. Scientists haven't used them in decades...you said so!

Ready to apologize?

DK


275 posted on 09/27/2005 7:30:04 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Here is an interesting and imposing bit of research on Josephus.

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

Its conclusion is that Josephus and the writer of Luke used the same source, now lost.


276 posted on 09/27/2005 7:32:14 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: moog

I don't understand why more Christians can't just view science as the means by which god works his wonders, rather than as something to shield their children from.


277 posted on 09/27/2005 7:43:43 AM PDT by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: claptrap
There were over 500 witnesses to Jesus after his crucifixion. His own brother didnt beleive yet later became a believer and was willing to die for that belief.

This may count for evidence in religious circles. But 2000-year old hearsay accounts from mostly biased, untrained observers doesn't cut it in scientific research.
Why not leave science to science's role, and the bible to the bible's role. Trying to use the bible as a science book just doesn't work.

278 posted on 09/27/2005 7:55:25 AM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Hmmmm. I have to say it's interesting and plausible, but I'm not entirely convinced. I tend to be skeptical of claims of statistical significance if the person doing the analysis is not a statistician. But in any case, it deduces that two of the three sentences that Meier concludes were interpolations really were interpolations, and only the third, longer passage, might have come from the proto-Luke source.

I'd be interested in how this all relates to the Q source, which with Mark is supposed to be the source for Matthew and Luke.

279 posted on 09/27/2005 7:57:28 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

It has the virtue of simplicity.


280 posted on 09/27/2005 8:01:12 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: fabian
So how much more must there be an artist that made the real Monalisa.

Yes, and we have abundant, physical evidence of this type of 'intelligent design': 1) A long recorded history of painters.
2) Detailed brush strokes, which can be essentially reproduced with contemporary brushes.
3) Detailed knowledge of the nature and manufacture of paints
Show me the corresponding evidence for the intelligent design in nature. Until you can, it remains a *completely unsupported hypothesis*.

281 posted on 09/27/2005 8:01:23 AM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: js1138
It has the virtue of simplicity.

Yes, it does. I find the whole area of text reconstruction from computer analysis fascinating.

The interesting thing is that when biblical scholars make deductions from relatively small, multiply-copied fragments of text - and I'm not saying they're bad deductions - the fundamentalists lap it up as hard evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But take much stronger evidence for evolution from gene sequences or fossils, and all of a sudden it's indirect, conjectural, implausible, and wild-ass guessing.

282 posted on 09/27/2005 8:06:02 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

The interesting thing is that when biblical scholars make deductions from relatively small, multiply-copied fragments of text - and I'm not saying they're bad deductions - the fundamentalists lap it up as hard evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But take much stronger evidence for evolution from gene sequences or fossils, and all of a sudden it's indirect, conjectural, implausible, and wild-ass guessing.<<

You don't believe in logic or reason. You haven't thought of them in years. Why do you have an expection for the fundamentalists you don't have for yourself?

DK


283 posted on 09/27/2005 8:14:54 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Pipeline

"Teaching evolution as a scientific theory is fine as long as they also make the kids understand the scientific fact that science can't explain the origin of things like atoms."

Another Creationist totally ignorant of modern Science. You might want to check out a little something called "Quantum Theory". Now it is 'only a theory' but it does 'explain the origin of things like atoms'. Things so 'like atoms' that they are, like, atoms; or something.

Just when you think they cannot get any more ignorant...


284 posted on 09/27/2005 8:50:29 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

The point is the bias of the scientists regarding the formation of the Scablands. They immediately assumed it could not have been formed by a geologically recent flood - did you not find that concerning? Or is your bias so strong, you thought it was just fine.


285 posted on 09/27/2005 8:54:03 AM PDT by Wicket (God bless and protect our troops and God bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Dark Knight

This guy is stalking me from thread to thread, posting the same comment, evidently for the purpose of harassment. Could you please deal with it?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491393/posts?page=283#283

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491393/posts?page=275#275

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489731/posts?page=349#349


286 posted on 09/27/2005 8:58:03 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

The biggest problem with evolution is that it has an awful lot of holes in it as a theory.

According to evolutional theory, if I had a bin full of auto parts, all I would have to do is shake that bin long enough until I managed to assemble a Cadillac. This is whee the concept of time comes in: naturally, one cannot be expected to create a Cadillac from extraneous parts by simply shaking the bin. However, if I were to shake that bin for 2 or 3 million years, the chance that I just might put that Cadillac together in this fashion, begins to improve dramatically.

Since time, to most of us, is not a concrete concept and the lengths of time we're talking about are beyond the comprehension of most people (can you really imagine how long 1,000,000 years is?), evolution makes sense. Time stretches to cover (almost) all holes in the theory.

The second hole in the theory of evolution has to do with incremental steps. For example, I can see in color. In order to this, my eyeballs have been adapted to seperate the component parts of light and reassemble them. My retinas are attuned to seeing in color and my brain is wired to help me translate color.

According to evolutionary theory, all three of these mechanisms would have had to occur simultaneously and in harmony, or I wouldn't be able to see in color. Take away the specialized eyeball and the retina, and I have a brain that could translate color, but no way to see it. According to evolutionary theory, this would be a useless trait, and therefore would not be passed on to the next generation.

Finally, the worst part of evolutionary theory is the identification of how an organism makes adaptations that are beneficial to it's enviornment. Do organisms "will" such changes into existance? Is there a thought process involved? Is there empirical process (trial and error)?


287 posted on 09/27/2005 9:04:37 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Sh*t since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

In debate you need to be able to state your opponent's position befor attacking it. Auto parts do not reproduce themselves and cannot evolve. Try again.


288 posted on 09/27/2005 9:07:55 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I am reminding you of a horrendously stupid thing you said in another thread on the same subject. If you were less pompous in your treatment of people that disagree, I would not give you another thought.

But if you cannot take your own words, some self-examination is in order. Doncha think?

DK


289 posted on 09/27/2005 9:10:06 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Dark Knight

And yet again...


290 posted on 09/27/2005 9:12:23 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Of course they don't, but it proves the point; even when you have the component parts there is no guarentee they will assemble into the form you want of their own volition.

The same can be said of the "building blocks of life". If you put amino acids, elements, chemicals and such in a bowl, there is no guratenee they will combine to form something we would recognize as life.

I notice you did not defend or attack the other premises about time and incremental steps. Hard to argue with them, is it?


291 posted on 09/27/2005 9:15:11 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Sh*t since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Admin Moderator; Dark Knight
This guy is stalking me from thread to thread, posting the same comment, evidently for the purpose of harassment.

Look.. here is where you came in on Dark Knight LWP, not the other way around.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489731/posts?page=283#283

Here is where I pointed it out

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489731/posts?page=340#340

Wolf
292 posted on 09/27/2005 9:59:58 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
A thing is a science if enough scientists concede it is

Well there it is.. from a guy from your side on these boards. I cant use his name because he 'sicd' the mods on me. However copying a line of text from him (or a line of text from another article) is not posting to anyone but you, and I got accused of that too.

Wolf
293 posted on 09/27/2005 10:38:34 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

I posted the copy that I had as is. However, I should have made the clarification immediately and not waited to be called on it. I felt I was getting long winded in the original post. The only reason that I countered with Josephus' writings was to refute the intitial, inaccurate comments made by the poster.

As for the Christians who are lecturing you, it is not my place to judge or lecture as a Christian. I simply state information which I have found useful in my study. People are free to do with it what they please.

The case for Christ, when thouroughly researched, is a pretty strong one.


294 posted on 09/27/2005 10:43:24 AM PDT by AZConcervative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

Macroevolution as the explanation for the existence and diversity of species is the worship of the trinity of chaos, random chance and time as creators. In modern times, however, these three unfortunately seem to have lost their creative powers.


295 posted on 09/27/2005 10:53:51 AM PDT by TChris ("The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail" - Goh Chok Tong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Also you failed to see my /sarc> tag at the end of that statement on what you responded too.

Wolf
296 posted on 09/27/2005 11:04:42 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Sometimes I tire of these threads.

NS is not that important a theory in science. It does not have that many inroads to applications.

It does not have many inroads to Medicine. It should.

Until the last 40 years, it was strictly a thought argument.

It has been superHyped by soft science biologists. As always, my apologies to the molecular geneticists, and hard core scientists that have advanced biology beyond its infancy.

Of course philosophy is never important to scientists, they will have the typical troubles of those that don't know how they know anything.

There are even very learned people that don't care about logic and reason, that pontificate about evolution. But they don't have a clue that they are the problem, not the solution.

They hide behind the skirts of others. I really don't like speaking to cowards that deny their own words.

They are pathetic.

Thanks wolf!

DK


297 posted on 09/27/2005 11:32:20 AM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
I don't understand why more Christians can't just view science as the means by which god works his wonders, rather than as something to shield their children from.

I think it is the tendency of some (note I said some) scientists to ridicule Christians and their faith-based beliefs. Thus, some Christians then figure turnabout is fair play and lump science into one category. The evolution debate fuels this too with some taking the notion that since scientists believe in evolution, then a LOT of science is bad.

That being said, I've never had a problem with a lot of science. It is man's way of understanding God's processes and often brings to light the beauty and order of God's creations. As I said before, learning evolution only strengthened my belief in God and his creation. I was believing in intelligent design 20 years ago before it became fashionable.

We wouldn't be anywhere without science. Nearly everything we use has been based on some scientific principle. I had WONDERFUL science professors in college--both at the secular institution and at the private religious university .

You're right. Science is a beautiful thing to show God's wonders. And children today LOVE science. What little boy doesn't love dinosaurs? I was one of them as were my 5 brothers. None of us grew up to be old evolutionists, just simple folks trying to do their best in life.

298 posted on 09/27/2005 2:55:26 PM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

The biggest problem with evolution is that it has an awful lot of holes in it as a theory.

I would probably say so too. But it is kind of pointless to debate as people will think what they want to think. I just like being descended from Adam and not Adam the amoeba, though my physical features sort of look more like an amoeba, hmmm.....


299 posted on 09/27/2005 3:08:03 PM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: KeepUSfree

I think there is a medium to all of this. Evolution has faults and extreme creationism has faults.

I think schools should show the facts and then point out different theories and the reasons behind those theories.

I think an interesting debate for a school would be evolution/intelligent design/creationism.


300 posted on 09/27/2005 3:16:20 PM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-341 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson