Posted on 08/17/2009 1:26:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You are correct.. my bad
But we're still confident the RATE project scientists will eventually figure out that accelerated decay "cold fission" business?
Or perhaps they are both part of an integrated system that were created to function together right from the start.
“But just because something is complex does not mean a magician in the sky is directly responsible for it.”
True, but it is the most common sense explanation. I’m not saying that science can never refute common sense (see: the world is flat), but a mere hypothesis cannot refute common sense. With evolution, scientists seem to struggle to prove the hypothesis, but then are unreasonably offended when somebody decides to rely on their common sense instead of on an unproven hypothesis that flies in the face of common sense.
He did answer your questions. The refutation of the “eyes exploded onto the scene” notion is plain.
This is the problem I have with the, er, Evangelical Wing of the Intelligent Design crowd: all too often their arguments reveal a gross & willful misunderstanding of biology, evolution, and the fossil record. I share the basic philosophy, but the rush to “you’re WRONG!” is, as you insinuated, childish.
I really have to argue with that. To me it is not common sense to see the fossil record and state that it was all created at once, nothing new comes along ever, and things only die off and go extinct.
There are just too many clear signs of changes and advances and then die offs for that to be the case.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the Temple of Darwin scientists who abuse their position and training to push their evo-religion.
What does “difficult’ or “easy” have to do with it? Truth is truth, regardless of whether it is easy or hard. Do you see science as justified self-punishment?
Believe me, if scientists had as difficult a time explaining, with adequate proof, lightning as they do evolution, then I would see divine wrath as a ver sensible explanation. Fortunately, they don’t.
Why does the common sense belief that super-complex organisms were made that way imply that they must have been made at the same time? Please explain.
Well, I know that the evolutionists are all commies. A group of them cornered me the other day and dragged me back into an alley. They beat me with sticks and their fists. They kept trying to make me say ‘Darwin was right!’ But I kept spitting in their faces. Finally some right thinking church-goers came to my rescue and ran the Darwinists off.
But they’ll be back, I know. They will stop at nothing to perpetuate their evil lie.
The earth is only 6,000 years old. It’s obvious. No amount of these dirty gestapo tactics will ever change my mind.
Death to the commie darwinists!
With as many 130,000 different varieties of mollusks living under every imaginable condition it would hardly be surprising that they have have different eyes.
It depends on if you’d have access to the fossil record or not.
I really doubt if anyone was just placed on an island with no biblical knowledge that they’d dig around, do research, and come up with Genesis or anything approaching it. Do you?
If someone that’s unbiased looks at the fossil record, there’s plenty there to indicate a simple-to-complex-over-time history.
If someone was to just sit down and look around them without digging deeper, I suppose it’s ‘possible’ to think it was all just there. But that requires a lack of any investigation.
You said it, not me d:op
What does Genesis have to do with it? The question is what makes more sense to the hypothetical island dweller — that there is a creator of such complex organisms, or not?
I don’t buy that, even with the fossil record, the island dweller’s would more likely say that there was an “historical progression” without a creator, than that something must have created these complex organisms.
I don’t know. If I see a fish being born and grow, it went from a simple few cells to something complex in front of my eyes. If I also saw the fossil record of the same thing happening, it would make sense to me that a similar thing happens over a longer time to species.
I think that’s a HUGE leap ... apples and oranges. I’m don’t think he would see the development of one organism from birth to maturity to be at all relevant to the development of a species.
Any more of a leap that some unseen force was involved?
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.