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

To: Rippin

==For the creationists, it takes us one step closer to a way where the evolutionists could be correct about common descent without overthrowing the unique work of a creator.

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


28 posted on 11/25/2008 11:28:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | 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.

"Kind" is not a scientific term. And the meaning in the Bible has become more fuzzy as the Bible is translated into different languages,

Can you please describe what you mean by "kind" -- starting with its use in the original language of the Bible and tracing its etymology to the current colloquial use of the word and any potential rigorous scientific application?

32 posted on 11/25/2008 11:43:33 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
You recall my response to the issue of "randomness in evolution" yesterday the simple observation W. Edwards Demming had? That was that given a long enough period of time and enough samples any sampling scheme will appear to approach randomness.

That's the problem we have with digging up fossils. We have samples we've obtained going back half a billion years (for the big stuff) from a broad area (surface of the Earth), so whatever we have at hand will appear to approach randomness.

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

That was yesterday's prediction ~ and today we find a "directed" process right there in the mitochondria (where I really never expected we'd find it).

Who or what came up with the "process" is a question still to be answered, but the "process" exists.

All of evolutionary theory is turned on its head. Unfortunately the writer of the review seems to be still stuck in time ~ hence references to fitness, et al.

42 posted on 11/25/2008 11:57:09 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | 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 ]

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