Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Behe is a God-less evolutionist. Why do you support him and ID?
Look, I haven't said anything negative to you or about you, nor have I said anything about Behe.
I've just asked you to explain why simultaneous mutations ar a flaw in evolution.
If you don't want to disss that, pick another flaw.
What a bizarre rant. How can you say that "evos" demand Scripture be taken literally? Obviously, the evolutionary model doesn't describe a world in which there is a man and cattle but no woman. Evolution demands a different (some would say deeper) understanding of Scripture than that it's a simple narrative of events.
But we're told time and again here that evolution can't be true because it conflicts with that simple narrative. The people saying that have to go through all kinds of contortions to make the narrative consistent--oh, this verb must be in the pluperfect even though Hebrew doesn't have a pluperfect, and you have to believe the six days part but ignore that part about the world being a circle, and on and on. But they do, because they demand that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Meanwhile, plenty of "evos" explain how they take the Bible to be the "literal Truth" without being literally true.
And then you come along and claim exactly the opposite. Very bizarre.
==I have no problem with giving small churches a break but not the mega-churches that that are more business than religion.
Why should the size of a church matter? Do you think it is the job of the government to punish successful churches? What government agency should be responsible for determining when a church gets too big? Will they use force to shut the church down? Will they come in with dogs, fire hoses, batons, tanks and machine guns? You are one scarry dude. Not even a commie like Obama openly talks about overturning the First Amendment and sicking the government on America’s churches.
Interestingly, I am more interested in churches being about religion rather than business than you are. If you have a problem with this perhaps we should just eliminate their tax deductions and let the successful churches pay their due share as stated in the bible.
Where in the constitution does it give churches tax breaks?
Living cautiously leads to long life. The longer you live, the more likely it is you get to procreate.
Every aspect of reproductive success is subject to the selection “forces” in effect at the time. There is no objective criterion for goodness or correctness.
No, refraining from cliff diving or becoming an amateur lion tamer is objectively correct or good, in relation to a goal of passing along your genes to offspring.
Accepting that the Bible is the “literal Truth” is not the same as interpreting everything in it literally and demanding that it be followed as such.
I agree with you that not everything in the Bible needs to be interpreted literally, like the Song of Solomon for example, breasts aren't literally bunches of grapes : ) But when Joshua lifts his arms and stops the Sun and Moon in the sky, is that to be interpreted literally or figuratively? Or the story of the Creation, or Noahs story, or the story of Israels deliverance from Egypt, or the Elisha where his bones cause the dead to live again? Those stories are the where the distinction between literal and figurative beliefs are important. Do you literally believe that Elisha's bones caused a dead man to live again?
So is it punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?
Both.
Are origins part of evolution or not?
Not.
Is it the pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?
Both.
Did life arise from non-living matter or is spontaneous generation is impossible?
We don't know.
So, are you a scientist, LeGrande? What field is your degree in? What scientific endeavors have you participated in?
The nice thing about science is that appeals to authority are not necessary : ) Whether Darwin or I are authorities on evolution is not important. What is important is the evidence that anyone can find and see. Science is based on falsification. All you have to do is find any evidence at all that Darwin was wrong and you will have falsified the whole TOE. It happens all the time in science. Einstein falsified all of Newtons theories. The history of science is basically a winnowing process where only the best and most accurate theories survive.
Believe it or not, I don't think that the TOE (in its present form) will survive much longer : ) There is starting to be good evidence that cells are capable of self modification in response to external stimuli, and the evidence of lateral gene transfer is indisputable. Like the old Chinese curse, we live in exciting times : )
(This isn’t directed to Arthur Wildfire. I haven’t figured out how to make a generic post here.)
Over 1,000 comments and counting on this blog! Is this a record on FreeRepublic? And yet some say, in the words of algore, “The debate is over!”
For those of you tuning in late and wondering what all the fuss is about, and not being familiar with the topic, evolution, here’s a very condensed but essentially accurate summary of the theory of evolution and its development:
Darwin observed finch beaks growing longer then shorter then longer to suit well the changing environmental conditions on the Galapagos Islands. Therefore, we “know” (or as they say, “we have a theory that no real scientist doubts”) that bacteria blindly bloomed Barry Bonds (over billions of years, of course).
Now that you have the fundamentals, fell free to jump into the FreeRepublic free-for- all!!
Can’t come up with a way that “origins” fits into evolution, so we’ll just ignore it.
See? Now evolution explains everything... well, except for that over there.
Exclude that and NOW evolution explains everything...
"Simple math and geometry. Try it sometime."Since your so up on this subject, could you tell me...
"does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won't even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?" --mrjesse
To do a generic post, you can just remove the name from the ‘To’ box, or put the generic name ‘All’ in the ‘To’ box.
Define my frame of reference.
"Define my frame of reference."The frame of reference for the actual position is the absolute position in the galaxy.
I haven’t done the calculation but it appears that LeGrande has the principle correct.
Which frame do you want me to refer to in order to answer your query?
“I haven’t done the calculation but it appears that LeGrande has the principle correct.”Appearances can be deceiving.
“Which frame do you want me to refer to in order to answer your query?”Degrees between the absolute apparent and absolute observed positions as observed from earth.
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.