Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
So you creationists are so wedded to your Biblical literalism that now you reject all of astrononomy as well as one of the most obviously true tenets of biology? Your argument was made 300 years ago. At that time it was not asinine, as it was widely assumed the Sun burned like coal. Now we know of fusion.
And of course, the size of the Sun has not been been a topic with widely varying answers at least since shortly after it was accepted that the Earth went around it.
What's next in your fantasy universe, a flat Earth?
Arguably, the absence of God makes morality obsolete, although plenty of atheist philosophers argue otherwise, and plenty of non-raping and non-killing atheists show otherwise in practise. Even if one accepts that we need God to define morality absolutely, that does not mean we need an ultra-meddling God who labored over the design of each species, and labored to create a false record of sedimentation, fossilization, etc.
Since you here present utilitarian grounds for traditional morality, you yourself show that even an atheistic utilitarian can accept that your morality is of benefit to society. (And individuals are always apt to see benefit in following the morality of any society with a system of justice, formal or informal.)
BTW, I don't know a lot of people who suffer from "despair," and I doubt very much that despair or major depression or any such thing correlates much one way or the other with belief in evolution.
Possible, but not likely. People like these are into control, so the world would made up of the "Believers" and the imprisoned.
The infidels in prison will be doomed to Perdition, while the Creationists will receive their reward in Paradise of 79 virgin monkeys.
There was no reason. And of course it didn't. If you set up your own straw man, in this case, an unreasonably unlikely evolutionary sequence, you will find it easy to knock down. Proving nothing.
Yes, but if you include the Sun, then order in the sytem is decreasing. While life on Earth may be morally of great significance, its physical significance in thermodynamic terms is pretty muich defined by its mass: much less than that consumed in the Sun.
Yes, "Studies of [the variations in] human DNA from populations around the world suggests a common African ancestry living some 200,000 years ago."
So if you give the studies credence, you are implicitly accepting 200,000 years, not 6,000 years, as the date of the bottleneck.
Of course, if you accept these studies' validity, you must also accept, for exactly the same reason, that humans and chimps split off about 6 million years ago.
Also, if you accept these studies, it's clear that the bottleneck occurred in Africa -- not in the Holy Land.
Finally, there are non-miraculous, non-flood explanations for the bottleneck. Namely, that the modern humans that came out of Africa outcompeted the Neanderthals.
Let me get this straight. We all know that life originated on at least one occasion in the universe.
Evolutionists say that the likeliest explanation is that life originated based on the same laws of chemistry and physics that we see in everyday existence. But Evolutionists do not claim to know the exact structural-chemical pathway by which life originated.
Creationists say that the likeliest explanation is that God created the life through magical processes which have never been shown to exist -- a literal Deus ex Machina.. But they know based on their readings of ancient religious literature. Of course, most of them are not willing to stick to any falsifiable claims (like, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or any particular age) even while they nit-pick the slightest variation in evolutionary theory.
And yet Creationists say that what Evolutionists are proposing is unlikely, and that Evolutionists have failed to show their process?
Like your icon.
The short version is that you can't make a scientific theory by postulating the Designer, and then filtering evidence, keeping what fits and throwing out what doesn't. In grade school this sometimes passes for science, but it's not working.
I think it makes perfectly fine theology. In fact, I like it as theology. I think God makes everything work anyway.
There were other examples in the article that I thought were bad science, but the "Designer postulate" crashes the whole theory as science. It needs a lot of work to make it science. I thought a little about an approach but couldn't make it work.
There's still an opportunity for someone. ;)
The majority of these lay eggs that undergo what is known as terrestrial direct development. In this process, the eggs incubate on land before the frogs hatch as miniature adults, skipping the tadpole stage completely. Such growth could help explain why these animals have persisted, the scientists suggest, because many of the factors thought to be responsible for the decline of frog populations are particularly dangerous to water-based young.No magic involved. Just mutation, environmental changes, and good old natural selection.
Scientists Spy Dozens of New Frog Species in Sri Lanka.
Oh, spare us, elbucko. The scientific basis of Darwinism is at issue, not Creationism. If you can't hold your own here, by all means bow out, but try to do so gracefully.
But THAT DOESN'T MEAN ... blah blah blah! </creation_mode>
Not having a real horse to put in to make a race, Phaedrus noted that the evolution horse is "too musclebound."
I guess a frog example is just too perfect a setup for being labeled slime.
Well, the evolutionists may laugh at the idea, but to me evil and the truth are not compatible. Man is better than that, he has the power to choose. He does not have to behave like a beast. If man chooses what is good, he will produce goodness, if he chooses to produce evil, he will produce destruction. It is in our hands what kind of world we will live in.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. Evolution laid the philosophical foundations for both Nazism and Communism. It made scientific materialism respectable. It is the followers of Darwin who using his excuse of 'lower races', eugenics, and 'helping' natural selection, that killed more than 100 million totally innocent people.
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.