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

To: Heartlander
The question was “Form molecules From Scratch?” - meaning matter from nothing.

When I used to sometimes make bread from scratch, I didn't start with nothing.

Darwin’s theory has given us some insight to natural selection (survival of the fittest), but the conclusion that he draws, I believe, is wrong.

The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859. Your "belief" on the subject is being steered by some sort of outside influence.

I see adaptation as a quality of a robust design.

Does something stop the adapations from accumulating forever? What is it? Why does it look over and over in so many different ways like amphibians came from fish and reptiles came from amphibians and mammals and birds came from reptiles over a lot of time?

I do not believe in common descent – “soup to man”. This does not mean that I am not open to the theory though (or any theory for that matter).

"Does not mean that you are not open?" This is getting silly. Maybe the sentence that precedes that one isn't conclusive proof, but you're not at all open to the idea of evolution.

What would make you think that I would want to move into a cave and throw out my computer? (not rhetorical)

It's made with mechanistic Godless materialist science. It works without prayer, unless you have certain Microsoft products installed.

161 posted on 07/30/2002 6:43:32 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859.

Absolute unmitigated garbage. Just the kind of totally baseless bluff which evolutionists constantly make. Science has totally disproven evolution. In fact every single major scientific discovery since Darwin's unscientific book came out has tended to disprove evolution:
1. Mendellian genetics proved that the passing on of new mutations, new genes, new traits, is virtually impossible.
2. DNA proved that the creation of a new gene is a virtual impossibility to occur even once, a total impossibility to have occurred the hundreds of thousands of times which evolutionary theory demands.
3. The sequencing of the human genome has shown quite well that Darwin's opponents, who insisted that an organism was so complex, so totally interrelated that it had to have been intelligently designed, were totally correct and that such organization and such interrelatedness make gradual evolution totally impossible.

179 posted on 07/30/2002 7:27:07 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
When I used to sometimes make bread from scratch, I didn't start with nothing.

A recipe maybe? (rhetorical)
My original question:
“Can we reproduce the Big Bang… Create time… Form molecules from scratch?”

So you took one part out of context, added the naturalist yeast and made bread? (again – rhetorical) Look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time but… you didn’t make bread – you just pinched a loaf.

The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859. Your "belief" on the subject is being steered by some sort of outside influence.

Really? Darwin believed cells were just globs of matter. We now know that they contain DNA, a highly information based system. Ooops.

He spent a little over a month on the Galapagos Islands and a majority of his time breeding pigeons. I do not believe this man intended to pigeon hole science, or have his naturalistic 150 year old theory become a religion.

Does something stop the adapations from accumulating forever? What is it? Why does it look over and over in so many different ways like amphibians came from fish and reptiles came from amphibians and mammals and birds came from reptiles over a lot of time?

The genome. Get a group of guys together jumping out of trees and waving their arms. We’ll get back together in a million or so years to discuss your results. That’s if these men are able to find a mate.

"Does not mean that you are not open?" This is getting silly. Maybe the sentence that precedes that one isn't conclusive proof, but you're not at all open to the idea of evolution.

No, this does not mean I am not open. Yes, this is getting silly. Maybe you can entice the guys with beer and they will be willing to jump and flap.

It's made with mechanistic Godless materialist science. It works without prayer, unless you have certain Microsoft products installed

Since I believe intelligence came from intelligence – I can only assume that you are referring to the loaf you pinched earlier.
Life comes with Intel Inside:)

Now if you will excuse me – I am in the process of designing something. ( I can only hope you understand)

183 posted on 07/30/2002 7:35:36 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | 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