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

Skip to comments.

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)
Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

Posted on 11/25/2008 10:22:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 next last
To: freedumb2003
I am sure supporters of Newtonian Physics felt a little silly when Einstein physics was accepted as the new paradigm.

Typical lazy intellectual reasoning that has no basis in reality. Nearly everything man has created through today is due mostly from or entirely from Newtonian physics, not Einstein.

51 posted on 11/25/2008 12:04:40 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
You're wrong. Many people (scientists included) wouldn't believe in God under any circumstances. In fact, the only thing that would convince most modern materialists that God exists is if He Himself appeared here on Earth, working miracles and proclaiming His authorship of all reality.

The belief or non-belief in God is not the question at issue. GGG has posted an article which he claims scientifically undermines TToE and, by extension, materialistic/naturalistic science. We are asking where in the article it does that and how so.

As a follow-up we have some people who are saying that a 100% naturalistic (that is, things seen only in the physical Universe) is somehow lacking. I merely ask what scientific discovery and tangible product resulting therefrom has NOT been 100% naturalistic.

I await answers to either of these questions. I suspect the OP and others will abandon this thread before a straight answer is produced.

52 posted on 11/25/2008 12:05:30 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mlo

So man DESIGNED systems are now valid examples of evolution? Who knew. I hope my carborator evolves and allows my car to start running better. I know I want it to.


53 posted on 11/25/2008 12:06:44 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

So give us an example from the history of science in which abandonment of methodological materialism led to a useful discovery.


54 posted on 11/25/2008 12:07:14 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Typical lazy intellectual reasoning that has no basis in reality. Nearly everything man has created through today is due mostly from or entirely from Newtonian physics, not Einstein.

I think you fired at a friendly here. Both are 100% naturalistic -- which is my point. I am not a physicist and cannot argue one over the other. I am knowledgeable about science and do know there is no place in it for ID or Creationism/miracles.

55 posted on 11/25/2008 12:07:16 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

Consciousness is a mechanism? Really? Have you looked up the definition of mechanism lately? It is purely and simply a feature of the material world.


56 posted on 11/25/2008 12:08:10 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The problem with evolutionists and creationists is that they see things as mutually exclusive. It is not. Creationism can include evolution. The research done at Princeton doesn't disprove creationism, to the contrary, it actually corroborates it.
First: To take the Bible’s time line literally as to say one day actually means a day is too simplistic. A day may be 100 million years. It actually means stage rather than day.
Second: God is before time and space. Before time and space is called One, not two. Since no time exists and no space exists, God creates everything in an instant, in One point. Everything is a digital design, that has seven stages.
Third: Once God decides to separate into two, the unfurling of time and space and the whole process of creation takes place. It takes billions of years, evolution occurs, similarly to what Darwin postulated, but not exactly. There is one crucial mistake in his theory. Evolution is not by accident! It is by God's plan that was created before separating.
Fourth: The fact that the proteins have the capacity to self improve, is based on the fact that this very thing is planned into evolution, is designed in, and as such is part of the framework of evolution.
57 posted on 11/25/2008 12:09:04 PM PST by Sapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
SWapping out your carburator for fuel injection is NOT evolution on the part of the car.

However, if we could develop "evolving cars", we'd probably never need to buy any new ones.

Whooops, there goes Detroit!

58 posted on 11/25/2008 12:09:22 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Consciousness exists — obviously — but cannot be defined in material terms, nor can its existence be demonstrated by the scientific method. It is therefore by definition a supernatural entity, and its existence disproves the materialist assumption that “if it cain’t be poked with a stick, it ain’t real”.


59 posted on 11/25/2008 12:17:18 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"I ask again -- please specifically describe a single scientific finding or physical device that is non-materialistic. Your wordplay is, I am sure, gratifying to some. I asked a specific question: please answer it."

Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers. In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious questions is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.

My responses are not 'wordplay', but are answers pointed specifically at the logical fallacies you so effortlessly commit in clinging to your philosophical position. That you continue to insist on maintaining your position even after I have showed you the fallacies supporting it merely proves the point that a belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability.

60 posted on 11/25/2008 12:17:52 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"So give us an example from the history of science in which abandonment of methodological materialism led to a useful discovery."

Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers. In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious questions is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.

That you continue to insist on maintaining your position even after I have showed you the fallacies supporting it merely proves the point that a belief in philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability.

61 posted on 11/25/2008 12:19:14 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Consciousness exists — obviously — but cannot be defined in material terms, nor can its existence be demonstrated by the scientific method.

Can you cite an example of consciousness that exists without a body?

62 posted on 11/25/2008 12:19:54 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

If you can’t cite an example of a scientific discovery that resulted from abandoning methodological materialism, could you tell us what point you are trying to make?


63 posted on 11/25/2008 12:22:03 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You cannot even define ID, yet you are certain that it has no place? Furthermore, your statement about Eistein replacing Newton cannot be further from the truth. Thus, if you do not understand physics, don’t make absurdly false statements about physics.

I do realize that I have insulted or may have insulted you on this point. But please, “Newton is the Man” as far as science and technology goes. Yes, much of his work breaks down at the extremes, but so does Einsteins when you look closely at it.


64 posted on 11/25/2008 12:23:23 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So give us an example from the history of science in which abandonment of methodological materialism led to a useful discovery.

In 1862, August Kekule von Stradonitz had all but given up the pursuit of the structue of benzol when he conceived its hexagonal structure (the "benzine ring") as the result of a dream he had of a snake biting its own tail. Dreams are not part of the rigor of methodological materialism.

65 posted on 11/25/2008 12:25:30 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Can you cite an example of consciousness that exists without a body?

Yes. The consciousness of the many people throughout history who have experienced and described discorporate experiences, aka "near-death experiences".

66 posted on 11/25/2008 12:31:09 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Did I mention that philosophical naturalism destroys critical-thinking ability?

That's why science relies on methodological naturalism -- an assumption about the natural world. If that assumption can be shown to be incomplete or wrong it can be changed.

Creationists, on the other hand, willfully accept a philosophical position that destroys their critical-thinking ability--they are absolutely unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. They misrepresent, pick and choose, and otherwise mangle any data that contradicts their religious beliefs, and that which they can't so treat they ignore. Creation "science" is pure religious apologetics, and everyone knows it.

So don't lecture scientists about critical thinking.

67 posted on 11/25/2008 12:35:47 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Highlighted answer to #1: “Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.”

#2: Directed mutation implies a designer. Now the Evos will have to work overtime to convince the public that this too is the product of a process that merely gives the “appearance of design.” LOL

False.

What these scientists are describing is just a feedback mechanism. No big deal -- except to creationists who know little about science and who are blindly grasping at any straws that come by.

68 posted on 11/25/2008 12:38:36 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Dreams are not part of the rigor of methodological materialism.

What matters in science is how you validate ideas. Methodological materialism concerns itself with evaluating hypotheses.

69 posted on 11/25/2008 12:39:36 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Yes. The consciousness of the many people throughout history who have experienced and described discorporate experiences, aka "near-death experiences".

I had such an experience as a child during surgery. Sorry, but everyone who has reported such an experience has had a body that lived to tell about it. I'm not aware of anyone recovering from cellular necrosis and reporting such an experience.

70 posted on 11/25/2008 12:44:01 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So give us an example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries of principals.

1. Origin of the Universe-tell us how, from a naturalistic point of view, the universe sprung from nothing. To do this you must contradict Einstein, Wilson, Penzias, Hubble, Jastrow, the findings of COBE, the findings of WMAP, law of cause and effect, David Hume's assertions of first cause, Kalam's Cosmological Arguement. Even Fred Hoyle, avowed atheist to the bitter end said there seemed to be a superintelligence tinkering with the laws of physics. Science can take you back only as far as a few millionths of a microsecond prior to Big Bang. But what of the moment prior to that singularity. Please clear this up for all of us.

The second example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries is first life. Tell us how the first cell came to be.

If living organisms are nothing more than chemicals and their sofisticated reactions, and nothing else, please explain consiousness...what is its chemical makeup? What does conciousness weigh? What is the molecular structure of love, hate, beauty, justice? You do agree that there is something called conciousness? No?

If at any point you deny the universe beginning, then you deny all of the findings of the theory of general relativity, Hubbles red shift, the predicted background ratiation from the big bang found by Wilson and Penzias, as well as the findings of COBE and WMAP. You have denied what science has shoved into your face. Yours is a volitional application of selective science and is dishonest in refusing to consider all of the above findings and allow those findings to take you whereever they will take you.

So your charge is simple. Just tell us the natural materialistic explaination for origin of the universe, first life, and consiousness.

71 posted on 11/25/2008 12:47:42 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
I would say the expectation of consistency, simplicity, and elegance of the natural laws of physics

is assuming a supernatural causation.

72 posted on 11/25/2008 12:49:34 PM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Again, pointing out the logical fallacies you commit in support of your personal philosophical worldview has no impact on your thought processes. Your question has the assumption of philosophical naturalism embedded in it and requires the assumption of philosophical naturalism for interpreting any answers. In summary, you commit the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism in your question. Now perhaps you believe that generating fallacious questions is somehow support for philosophical naturalism, but that is only because you lack the critical-thinking capability needed to recognize your error.

Please state when and where non-naturalistic processes have been used in science to produce a tangible result.

73 posted on 11/25/2008 12:50:01 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Origin of the Universe-tell us how, from a naturalistic point of view, the universe sprung from nothing.

An interesting problem, but the net energy (and therefore mass) of the universe is zero, so it is an error to assert that physics says something came from nothing. Physics allows temporary somethings from nothing. And we are, by all accounts, both scientific and religious, temporary.

74 posted on 11/25/2008 12:51:12 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
You cannot even define ID, yet you are certain that it has no place?

ID/Creationism: The idea that a non-materialistic "intelligence" (or God) somehow is involved in naturalistic processes.

Furthermore, your statement about Eistein replacing Newton cannot be further from the truth. Thus, if you do not understand physics, don’t make absurdly false statements about physics.

The Einsteinian theory of certain aspects of physics replaced Newtonian. I used it as an example of how one materialistic theory can replace another and that does NOT open the door for ID. It was exemplary and tangential to my argument.

75 posted on 11/25/2008 12:53:46 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

Consciousness exists — obviously — but cannot be defined in material terms, nor can its existence be demonstrated by the scientific method.
_______

Chuckling. Has the simple statement of your predisposed thinking ever actually worked as scientific evidence?

C’mon, just saying so don’t make it so.

If the brain dies, so does consciousness (if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it). The brain is a physical entity. Consciousness would then seem to be housed in a physical entity. That physical entity can be poked and prodded using electrical and chemical stimuli to produce mental events.

I think you still have work to do on your thesis.


76 posted on 11/25/2008 12:53:47 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Consistency-is a subjective term.

Simplicity-is a subjective term.

Elegance-is a subjective term.

Laws of Physics-can you tell me from naturalistic science where and how we test and display by scientific method that the law of physics should not be 'expected' to act upon nature consistent with those laws of nature...whether it is a cue-ball or bullet or a distant star?

77 posted on 11/25/2008 12:56:44 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Although that is an interesting pursuit that may yield significan fruit, it is not a precursor to any modern scientific study -- physics works the way it works no matter how the Universe sprang into being. The same is true for chemistry, the mechanisms of TToE, astronomy, geology, et. seq.

The idea that any given branch of science (save, of course cosmology) is dependent on the answers to how it All Started is to eschew science and the Scientific Method.

78 posted on 11/25/2008 12:58:12 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Why assume that the laws will be consistent?
Why assume that we will be able to discover them?


79 posted on 11/25/2008 12:58:49 PM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
"So man DESIGNED systems are now valid examples of evolution?"

Nothing I said or quoted implied that.

80 posted on 11/25/2008 1:02:07 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Yes. The consciousness of the many people throughout history who have experienced and described discorporate experiences, aka "near-death experiences".

They were alive, therefore these were inside a body. They are not examples of consciousness outside of a body.

81 posted on 11/25/2008 1:02:56 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: js1138
.....so it is an error to assert that physics says something came from nothing.

Thank you for your honesty. Please tell us of how the Heisenberg Principle asserts anything more than the inability of man to conclude anything more than he cannot predict the speed and location of a subatomic particle and any one point in time. It says nothing about cause. For you to assert than anything that came to be did not have a cause is to step outside of this time, space, matter, energy continuum, and for the naturalistic materialist, that is not an option.

Tell me, what has come to be, from nothing, from a scientific point of view.

82 posted on 11/25/2008 1:04:03 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“ASTRONAUTS DISCOVER FASCINATING FOSSIL

22 MARCH 2035 — Astronauts exploring the Cydonia region of Mars as part of the Brazilian expedition to the Red Planet made a fascinating discovery Thursday. The astronauts, who are part of the Joao Gilberto Station survey team, were using their rover’s crane to raise a large stone for study when they discoved an object lying in the cavity where the stone had been. Upon examination, the object was identified as a Remington manual typewriter, circa 1933. The existence of the object was reported to Earth, setting of a firestorm of interest around the globe. Media and religious authorities hailed the discovery as the first tangible evidence of life outside of Earth.

“Not so fast, says Dr. Raskol Petrokeph of the Richard Dawkins Institute. ‘It only looks like a typewriter to us because our brains have evolved to see structure in nature where no structure actually exists. The fact that the Cydonia object appears to be a manual typewriter of Earthly manufacture does not make that assumption true,” he said in an interview Saturday. ‘Since we know of no means by which a 1933 model typewriter could have gotten to Mars, Occam’s Razor tells us that the simplest explanation for its existence is that it was sculpted by chance from Martian materials by natural forces at some time in Mars’ past.’

“When asked to explain how the random action of wind, sand, and possibly water could have created a functional typewriter, complete with a set of keys bearing the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet, Dr. Petrokeph cited the many seeming coincidences that nature has produced throughout time. ‘We know that natural forces can produce objects of great complexity given enough billions of years. After all, here on Earth, random chance acting on a puddle of goo over the course of four billion years produced J.S. Bach,’ he said. ‘Bearing that in mind, it’s no great leap to accept that random chance plus Martian wind could sculpt a black 1933 Remington Model #4 typewriter with the serial number V502880 and a tendency to drop the semicolon.’

“Members of the Brazilan survey team, however, reportedly remain unconvinced. ‘Dude, it’s a typewriter. It was made by somebody’, said Giberto Credo, survey team leader. ‘I don’t know who made it, or how it got here, but I know a typewriter when I see it. There’s no way it was made by random chance. It’s obviously a product of design. Only an idiot would think otherwise.”


83 posted on 11/25/2008 1:08:02 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Quantum events have no cause in the classical sense. Certainly no local cause. This may or may not hold as we learn more, but the best empirical evidence is that things at the quantum level happen without cause.

Perhaps you have a solution for the infinite regress involved in the unmoved mover, but it is logically more consistent to assume that there are uncaused events. It’s certainly consistent with experiment.


84 posted on 11/25/2008 1:11:34 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Why assume that the laws will be consistent? Why assume that we will be able to discover them?

Tell us where the laws of physics have been abridged. Forensics, the Principle of Uniformity, scientific method all seem to depend upon these principles which allow us to apply the philosophical law of logic.

As to why we will be able to discover them, I suppose one might assume that we might never discover anything. But, science is the process of discovery and of discovering causes. Scientist have been laborously working for centuries to discover an order imposed upon this universe. I suppose we could all stop that now.

85 posted on 11/25/2008 1:13:20 PM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There are some basic misunderstandings at work here. "Directed process" does not mean "designed process". Most of the pro-creationist posters on this thread are making that leap. The "directed process" discussed in the article is a feedback mechanism that causes the result of the process to go in a certain direction.

"We delude ourselves into thinking the consequence, today's biota, are actually the result of random rather than "directed" processes."

Evolution is not simply some random process. It is a "directed process". It has always been understood to be so. That's the whole point. It is natural selection that provides the direction.

86 posted on 11/25/2008 1:14:11 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
"Consciousness -- the mind, the sum, the individual awareness that lies at the core of every human being. No one can even define it, much less offer a naturalistic theory of its nature. Nowadays, many materialists simply dodge the question by denying that individual consciousness exists."

I agree that many scientists do dodge the question, but it is incorrect to say that nobody can define it, or offer a naturalistic theory of consciousness.

87 posted on 11/25/2008 1:15:53 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Evolution is not simply some random process. It is a "directed process". It has always been understood to be so. That's the whole point. It is natural selection that provides the direction.

Simplest and best statement of the facts that I've seen.

88 posted on 11/25/2008 1:15:54 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I'm not aware of anyone recovering from cellular necrosis and reporting such an experience.

Lazarus of Bethany. His death, burial, and resurrection by Jesus after being entombed for four days ("Lord, by this time he stinketh") was witnessed and attested to by many, including Jesus' enemies.

But of course Lazarus doesn't count, because the story of his resurrection is found in the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of St. John, and for some reason contemporaneous historical documentation from the Bible doesn't count.

89 posted on 11/25/2008 1:16:36 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
In "The Rise of Modern Science" these assumptions that you just take for granted are explained in terms of the other cultures in which the assumptions didn't exist - China and Islamic countries.

(Western) scientists assume order and discoverability because of the basis of their culture - the old and new testament of the Bible.

Islamic "scientists" were severely limited by their culture, because their educational facilities saw any assumption of a consistent creation as "chaining Allah" and was viewed as apostasy.

Back to the point. Modern science is based on the SUPERNATURAL ASSUMPTION that the Creator made His creation in a logical manner that was discoverable by His special creation, mankind.

90 posted on 11/25/2008 1:18:55 PM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Evolution is not simply some random process. It is a "directed process". It has always been understood to be so. That's the whole point. It is natural selection that provides the direction.

If I may elaborate -- evolution is a stochastic process.

91 posted on 11/25/2008 1:19:06 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Not a problem. The fossil record clearly indicates that plants and animals reproduce after their kind, just as the Bible describes.


The creationist position is that there is no common descent. Please tell me you understand that the fossil record is irrelevant to this point? If the process is guided you could have sudden changes that do not overthrough common descent.


92 posted on 11/25/2008 1:20:36 PM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

is the idea that scientists would “look bad” if a science-based, fact-based theory somehow replaced


I didn’t say ‘scientists’ I said ‘evolutionists.’ Too many evolutionists are ideologues will indeed look like idiots if there is a paradigm shift because they have refused to acknowledge any of the accruing anomalies.


93 posted on 11/25/2008 1:22:07 PM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Lazarus of Bethany. His death, burial, and resurrection by Jesus after being entombed for four days ("Lord, by this time he stinketh") was witnessed and attested to by many, including Jesus' enemies.

But of course Lazarus doesn't count, because the story of his resurrection is found in the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of St. John, and for some reason contemporaneous historical documentation from the Bible doesn't count.

Why has it not happened in thousands of years? Why has there been no recordings of such since physical recording devices have existed?

And, once Lazarus was resurrected, his consciousness was in a body. There is no Biblical statement on Lazarus' consciousness existing while he was "dead" (assuming he was: we don't know) -- nor after his eventual final demise.

94 posted on 11/25/2008 1:23:52 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
I didn’t say ‘scientists’ I said ‘evolutionists.’ Too many evolutionists are ideologues will indeed look like idiots if there is a paradigm shift because they have refused to acknowledge any of the accruing anomalies.

The current argument is not about one physical theory that explains evolution versus another. It is about a suggestion that somehow an Intelligent Designer or Creator has been and is part of the process.

Science debates, frequently passionately, the meaning of the physical facts presented. It never suggests things that are not part of the material Universe as explanations.

95 posted on 11/25/2008 1:28:15 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

All great points. Thanks for the reply!


96 posted on 11/25/2008 1:28:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The “godless” and “materialistic” scientists have made another wonderful discovery about God’s creation. What have the proponents of ignorance accomplished lately?


97 posted on 11/25/2008 1:28:54 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

There are modern cases of people mistakenly thought to be dead. Medical technology still doesn’t solve the situation completely, as evidenced by the recent debate over Terri Schaivo.

Not too long ago, perfectly sensible people had alarm systems installed on their coffins for the possibility that they might be buried alive.

In the translation you linked, the person saying that “by this time he stinketh” is making an assumption, since the tomb has not yet been opened.

I’m not claiming my version is the true one, but you imply that the only options are a miracle vs a lie.


98 posted on 11/25/2008 1:30:26 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
yet they emphatically rule out Intelligent Design.

Unless these proteins are violating the laws of physics there is no reason to do so.

99 posted on 11/25/2008 1:32:03 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sapin
I disagree. I believe that the Bible clearly teaches YEC. Having said that, I appreciate that you at least come to the table with an open mind, and have not excluded the possibility of Creation/ID because of a prior commitment to materialist religion (like so many others on this thread).
100 posted on 11/25/2008 1:33:00 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-365 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