Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
That would be a historical event, not a process. It would be more interesting to ask when all people began to believe the same things abut God.
“Name one physical process required by evolution that has not been observed...”
I could do that, if I were into playing by the rules of engagement posted at my kids’ school playground.
When you’re ready to come in off the playground and start having a rational discussion with me instead of lacing your comments with insults intended to serve as bait, I think a more interesting approach to the issue would be for you to tell me what natural processes you think are involved in evolution. I suspect you have a pretty interesting understanding of what evolution is and how it operates.
So, come on. How does evolution happen?
And you just wouldn't consider that the problem isn't with the three of us, now would you? I hadn't seen those posts when I posted mine. I was rather surprised to see them after I hit the post button.
If your point wasn't to paint creationists as irrational, murdering, Islamic terrorists, then why constantly use them as an example of what a creationist is? Why harp on that?
You could have easily used people like the Amish, Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, Jesus, Himself. Could we not paint creationists in the light of people who show love and compassion and self-sacrifice, and made the world a better place to live?
Heck, even Newton and Einstein believed that there was enough evidence to point to a creator. Are you going to paint them as Islamic terrorists, too?
It was submitted by someone else on this thread (csense, I believe) that Satan is a Creationist, and caused not a ripple.
This is off the top of my head. If I am in error, it’s just me being ignorant.
Evolution is sometimes defined as change in allele frequency in populations. This can be due to selection, or it can be due to genetic drift.
There are other, related processes involved. There are a dozen or so ways that genes can be altered. They can also be duplicated or be inserted by viral infection. Genes can migrate form one chromosome to another. Chromosomes can also undergo duplication and various kinds of changes.
Evolutionary change always involves a change to the genome in a reproducing individual. The change must be carried forward to offspring. Changes to genes may or may not produce somatic changes, but if they have a statistical influence on the probability of surviving and reproducing, they will be subject to selection. If their effect is neutral, they can still diffuse through a population.
Traits that are visible and present in nearly all individuals in a population, over thousands of generations, are presumed to be stabilized by selection. Individuals lacking the trait are statistically less likely to survive and produce offspring. Selection is not simply a matter of which individuals are stronger. Female choice is a well documented mode of selection. Selective breeding by humans is another. Both of these produce change in a population faster than other known kinds of selection.
To summarize: evolution is an iterative process that involves genetic change in individuals, and differential reproductive success.
Wrong.. No animal past ot present, has ever wondered about a God.. ever..
It is not an event it is an evolution of species.. That is, if it ever happened at all..
Which is point of the question.. Darwin and Dawkins missed that.. pity..
And your evidence supporting this statement is....?
Common sense... opposed to Instinct and Law of the Jungle....
Common sense asks where did the third human on earth come from..
Instinct and the Law of the Jungle could care less..
metmom, you say it better than I did (at #151 below).
Perhaps Stultis does not see the distinction being raised....
Thank you so much!
And your evidence supporting this statement is....?
Precisely, which is why I'm in agreement with others that such a comparison between Christians and Muslims, absent a moral equivalence, is irrelevant and meaningless.
I'll it up to the the readers, then, to decide for themselves what the motive is for proposing such a comparison.
That the third human on earth came from the first two unless something really really strange happened.. Where did the first two come from?.. Yeah!... really..
And your evidence supporting this statement is...?
I agree with you. Other than that, there is no significance to be extended beyond the statement itself.
Goto 366...
It also seems to be a characteristic of Platonic thought. See the Myth of the Demiurge (in Timaeus), where he "persuades" the Chora [pure nothingness, yet at the same time pure potentiality, before the Demiurge gets there to provide a "guide to the system," via peithos, persuasion. I.e., the Demiurge leaves the system "free," but points it in the direction of divine beauty and truth. He is engaging the Chora "on a divine mission," so to speak...]. From his activity, the "becoming things" that make our Cosmos are produced.
I do not think anyone has ever supposed that Plato was a "monotheist," at least not in the modern sense of that word. He continued to pay his respects to the cultic gods of his beloved polis, Athens; though it is sure he felt the "tugs" and "pulls" of the divinity, the "One God" Beyond the Cosmos [methinks the "Unknown God" of Acts], in his own psychic life on a regular personal basis....
Then again, as Alamo-Girl astutely noted earlier today, Panspermia Theory -- the theory that biological life was seeded here on Earth by "space aliens" -- is a creation myth also.
We've got all kinds of "creation" theories/myths going on out there in human Reality (abiogenesis would be one); and this sort of thing has been going on as long as human beings have; or at least, from the very beginning of humanly recorded time (history).
And so you propose to classify them all according to the same system that you propose as suitable for Islamofascists?
Why would you want to do that? It seems so unreasonable to me.... FWIW.
I'll it up to the the readers, then, to decide for themselves what the motive is for proposing such a comparison.
Sorry I missed responding late, I missed the reply earlier.
I've reviewed the posts, and it appears that the motive was simply to supply a rhetorical couterpoint to the proposal that belief in evolution is a moral indicator.
Have you taken a look at Congress and the Courts recently?
betty boop
Bondserv:
By blatantly disregarding the Foundation of our Nation:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Congress and the Courts are "blatantly disregarding" our Constitution.
The fact that they are also ignoring who created what, - while an interesting religious question, - will never affect our survival as a Republic, because they are duty bound by the Law of the Land to ignore such divisive religious issues.
[See article VI - 'No religious Test']
RE: that post #151 reference. Sorry...another thread I guess. I’ve been “busy” today.... :^)
Great post, js1138. Thanks!
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.