Posted on 11/14/2007 4:00:52 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Feel free to refute any part of my post that you can.
But bring scientific evidence, not religious belief and apologetics.
And especially, don't bring any more personal attacks, as those are prohibited here.
A bold claim indeed. Don’t think I failed to notice that you conveniently dodged the challenge of providing your own ideas accompanied by your much vaunted “overwhelming” evidence in support of evolution. Instead, you replied with a hit piece claiming the Discovery Institute intends to create a theocracy in America. This speaks volumes about your level of confidence in the scientific merits of the Neo-Darwinian TOE.
Nevertheless, I am quite willing to evaluate the merits of your allegation. Namely, that the Discovery Institute is part of a grand conspiracy to impose theocracy in America (LOL!). Would you be so kind as to document your allegation? I will await your response with what can only be described as baited breath.
Whose scripture? Surely is not the Holy Bible, because the Bible literally in no way shape or form claims this earth is young, man claims it says such a thing. Now if you had literally spent any time reading what is Written you would know this.
Personal attacks?
I presented an objective assessment of your post; the one in which you puffed your wispy chest and asked “How’s that for an evolutionary idea?” in between cottony coughs.
See the Wedge Strategy.
I presented an objective assessment of your post; the one in which you puffed your wispy chest and asked “How’s that for an evolutionary idea?” in between cottony coughs.
Wispy chest?
Your argument is exposed as entirely vacuous, as well as just another personal attack.
Bring scientific evidence or don't bother to reply.
==Improvement in regards to natural selection means more able to pass on your genes in the current environment. It does not assume increasing complexity. Nowhere in the quote provided did Darwin provide the strawman you seem so eager to knock down.
Hmmm...please explain what Darwin meant by the following quote from “Origin of Species”:
“Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is more than enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.”
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1
Yes he is squirming. It is very unpleasant having to correct the IR/creationist nonsense that sprouts like fungus from the Bible.
IR=ID.
But...time FLIES when you're on a crevo thread!
PS Check out the graphs in post #4 this thread.
They bear a strange resemblance to stock prices for the DOW 30 accounting for splits, mergers, bankruptcies...
Cheers!
Women are a LOT more complicated than amoebas.
Why, just look at how long they take getting makeup on before going out!
Cheers!
Oh really? But I thought science had nothing to do with the supernatural. The supernatural is outside the scope of what science can discover. Science has enough to do without wasting it's time on hocus-pocus like that. What's it doing investigating it then?
"Probability" ? No one knows the numbers involved in the equation that determines the probability of abiogenisis.
You don't. I don't. No one has the slighest idea, at all, what the numbers are behind the chances of it happening. The human mind isn't actually physically capable of comprehending the numbers involved in the equation.
So, why don't you inform us all how you arrived at the conclusion that abiogenisis completely defies the laws of probability. Considering that it's currently impossible to figure it out, I'm interested in how you did it.
Two distinct trends here -- with some blurring.
One is looking at creationism based on Genesis and claiming that this is a representation of how the Universe has worked in general.
Another is looking at accounts of the supernatural and saying that they are historically accurate, even if they are known and admitted exceptions /deviations from natural laws.
Cheers!
cm: That's apologetics, not science.
But when it evolves from one initial kind, then it's called science? Why's that? Why is it science when it's going in one direction and apologetics when it's going in the other?
1) You have something against infrared spectroscopy (IR)?
2) Fungus sprouts from the Bible??
Cheers!
==See the Wedge Strategy.
Pull out selected quotes from the “secret” document that prove your SPEFICIC allegation that they are a conspiratorial cabal that seeks to impose a THEOCRACY on America.
And when the two are in conflict, scientists still follow science rather than Scripture. Your point is?
When science and Scripture are in conflict the first assumption is always that Scripture is wrong even though science is not about truth or proof but the best possible fit with the data.
The best possible fit with data is not always right. As a matter of fact, science has not only corrected itself many times, but is still in the process of correcting itself as new data comes in. That means that what was previously believed to be true/accurate/thebestfit/whatever - was wrong.
I still have yet to figure out how you can use something that's wrong, or not even sure is right, or not even sure is close to being right, to prove that something else is wrong.
Enlighten me, please. How does that work?
Once again you misunderstand science.
Lightning/thunder once was thought to be due to the influence of gods. Science showed what was really going on.
Germs and disease were once attributed to spirits. Science showed what was really going on.
In the past several hundred years, a lot of things once attributed to deities have been shown to be natural in origin.
Science does not deal with the supernatural. But it does show where ideas mistakenly attributed to the supernatural are actually natural. Science is very good at doing that.
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.