Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
So is it true, verifiable, or relevant? Pick one...
Can you give us an “unbiased source”?
I’d particularly like to see serious peer review of evolution, that’s not attacked as anti-science religion by evo-cultists.
“So how is it that you decide which is allegorical and which is not?”
I consult my Magic 8-Ball.
I understand you’re a cultist, and by default incapable of serious discussion.
“Can you give us an “unbiased source”?”
Most peer-reviewed scientific journals, for starters.
Now why would God do that? I'm sure if God wanted to, He could convince everyone at once. After all, He stated every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord one day. But He doesn't do that for a very specific reason. He leaves enough doubt in both sides' minds so they can make a choice based on their free will. For example, there is enough good in the world to puzzle the atheist and there is enough bad in the world to puzzle the Christian. He wants you to trust Him based on love, not on the overwhelming logic He could thrust in your face at any given moment.
Where does this guy get gloves, or does he just stick to mittens?
Maybe he could catch some fly balls pretty good, with a special made glove I guess? :)
Perhaps you can illustrate how this man is injecting religion into “real” science; all your peers have failed quite miserably.
***********************************************************
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
==I consult my Magic 8-Ball.
Why am I not surprised.
If memory serves, a recent study came out that demonstrated that atheists (who are almost all Darwinists) are about four times more likely to be superstitious than Christians.
He’d make a great movie critic. After all, how many other movie critics can give three thumbs up?
Most peer-reviewed scientific journals, for starters.
LOL!!!!!!!!
So you think godless liberals leave science to science and somehow never ever hijack science to support their ideology and worldview like they do everything else from law to history to journalism to politics, AND that scientists are always objective for the most part?
Can you give us some, no ANY, manmade global warming objectivity?
algoreacle said the debate is over in this area as well, so since it is, this can only mean it’s no longer theory but fact or very close to it and virtually all scientists agree with the algoreacle.
So that would be no then.
Pray tell. How EXACTLY is Darwin’s materialist, God-denying creation myth consistent with Christianity?
Let me be the first to say that your spiritual discernment is dead-on.
I consult my Magic 8-Ball.
I had that impression...by now you should get out the memo to your pals that it sends up the red flag of liberalism when cultists demand religion be kept out of science and immediately drag religion into the debate, or the Pope and so on...
and then have the audacity to warn people about how weak THEIR faith is to reject such godless liberal secular humanist NEA nonsense as Darwinism.
Liberals simply cannot abide by all the rules they demand of others. And frankly, they’ve never mnade a coherent argument about what they find acceptable Christian doctrine/scripture and what’s rejected.
It’s simply not the conservative (let alone Christian)position to go on as you have on both science and Christianity.
But hey, at least you shouldn’t feel alone if nothing else, as you have ALOT of (failed) company! ;)
So that would be no then.
You are correct, NO; you’re incapable of intellectually honest debate.
Not to mention, the Darwinists have been on the run as of late. Their house of cards are falling. Darwin's theories are becoming a liability to evolutionists.
He’d make a great movie critic. After all, how many other movie critics can give three thumbs up?
I wonder why he doesn’t snip that off?
I think it may be a cultural thing, IIRC, these things are considered good luck in some cultures. :)
==Not to mention, the Darwinists have been on the run as of late. Their house of cards are falling. Darwin’s theories are becoming a liability to evolutionists.
Yep, the Evos are already openly talking about giving Darwinian evolution a long overdue funeral. No doubt there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I'll pick all 3...strawman, strawman and strawman.
If this were a serious consideration then evolution would be ejected along with multiverse and string theory, for starters.
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.