Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts

Fox News ^ | August 13, 2008

[allmendream]

I do Science every day.

You think the Sun circles the Earth.

[GourmetDan]

I have seen the caliber of answers given about Evolution by Evolutionists and while embarrassing would certainly be one way to characterize them, I wouldn’t think it would be an embarrassment to the people READING the answer; that would usually be reserved for the one giving it.

[allmendream]

Maybe if you understood either the question or the answer you wouldn't need to be embarrassed.

[GourmetDan]

"I do Science every day."

If that's true, then you should be able to explain how you know that the ability to adapt 'evolved'. If you can't explain that, I doubt you 'do science'.

"You think the Sun circles the Earth."

You can't get anything right.

[GourmetDan]

"Maybe if you understood either the question or the answer you wouldn't need to be embarrassed."

Maybe if you understood the question or the answer you would be embarrassed.

[allmendream]

And if you keep mimicking me, do you think it makes you look clever or is it a case of imitation being the most sincere form of flattery? I know you lack for new ideas, being a Geo-centrist, but surely you can do more than "ape" my posts.

[GourmetDan]

"And if you keep mimicking me, do you think it makes you look clever or is it a case of imitation being the most sincere form of flattery?"

Neither.

You must think you are quite clever and worthy of imitation.

[GourmetDan]

"If that's true, then you should be able to explain how you know that the ability to adapt 'evolved'. If you can't explain that, I doubt you 'do science'."

If you really are clever and 'do science', then answering the question I posed to you above should be a snap.

Or are you so clever that you avoid answering any real questions and focus on your imagined superiority?

[allmendream]

Apparently I am worthy of imitation, as you did it three posts running.

And your question...

“explain how you know that the ability to adapt ‘evolved’”

I don’t “know” anything anything about how it came about (although there are some interesting hypothesis about auto-catalytic RNA), but I know that it was Gods plan that the Oceans bring forth life.

I can also observe that living systems can and do adapt to changing circumstances and the evidence suggests they do it by means of natural selection of genetic variation.

Adaptation by means of selection is an inescapable conclusion of the scientific evidence. As is the fact that the Earth circles the Sun by means of gravitational attraction. You accept neither.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Repeated denials isn't helping.

If your comments represent some kind of Turing test, I'd have to say you've failed. Is there a name for the logical fallacy of not being able to answer a simple question?

[Marie2]

The difference between you and me is, I admit to having presuppositions and you don’t.

God is able to do anything. He could have made us with the capacity to understand creation ex nihilo. But He didn’t. So, He tells us what He did simply, without giving us whatever details behind it there may be.

For example, when He created light. He said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

It’s not like he had to call up his lab partner. He’s God.

[Marie2]

Sorry, the above comment was meant to be addressed to HamiltonJay. I didn’t change the “to” area when I went to “reply.”

[allmendream]

The ability to adapt is inherent within any living system whose molecules of inheritance is subject to change and the population is influenced by natural selection. If the molecules of inheritance are malleable, and they most certainly are, then genetic variation arises. Genetic variation can be subject to selective pressure such that some alleles are favored and others are not.

[MrB]

“Yeah, but if you exclude whatever makes my theory fall apart, my theory holds together quite well!”

[MrB]

How are these people able to say that God didn’t tell us how He “did it” and in what time frame and what order?

You’d have to be a leftist “Constitutional Lawyer” to be able to read Genesis and not understand what God says He did.

[MrB]

I see two people with unshakeable pre-suppositions.

You both have the same facts, but due to your pre-suppositions, come to different conclusions in observing those facts.

These two pre-suppositions are:

“In the beginning, nothing...”
and
“In the beginning, God”

[MrB]

You think the Sun circles the Earth.

Foul, and forfeit.

Winner! Gourmet Dan!

[MrB]

The ability to adapt is inherent within any living system whose molecules of inheritance is subject to change and the population is influenced by natural selection. If the molecules of inheritance are malleable, and they most certainly are, then since genetic variation arises exists. Genetic variation can be subject to selective pressure such that some alleles are favored and others are not.

Changing ONE WORD (of consequence) in your post, and it's in the realm of the Creationist pre-supposition.

Dan's right that we admit to having pre-suppositions, but you are blind to yours.

Different conclusions based on the same observations are due to differing assumptions. You just won't admit your assumptions.

[allmendream]

Except that we have observed genetic variation arise from a population derived from a single organism. It is hardly an assumption. It is an observation.

[MrB]

You are observing the _expression_ of genetic information, you are not observing the genetic variation.

You have not mapped the genome of the original organism and then that of the adapted organism to show that there is added information in the genome of the adapted organism.

Observation equally supports the conclusion that the information necessary for the adaptation pre-existed in the original orgamism. Some populations are able to express it, others are not and therefore do not pass on this ability to express to their progeny. Natural selection at work.

Again, you are BLIND TO YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. Probably willfully so, because your assumptions justify something else.