Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Creation takes a beating in West Virginia
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Sol: "I like you. You're funny. I say that because these are the exact same arguments that First of Two and I have refuted before." You didn't refute them before. You misunderstood them, and when I explained further, you never replied. And you say I ignore your points... "A computer is a horrible analogy for a cell. Absolutely horrible." Sorry, but it's the only thing I could think of that executes it's programming. Or even has programming, for that matter. Any better suggestions would be greatly appreciated. "I'll try and say this as clearly as possible. Evolution does not work through random spattering. There are certain laws that must be obeyed. That's why it's science. To use the example I've used time and time again, if you randomly toss letters out it will take 10^huge number years to get Hamlet. But if you keep what works (as natural selection does) and toss what doesn't (as natural selection does) you can do the whole play (via computer) in just a few days." Granted, but natural selection can't come into effect until you have life to work with. With amino acids, you don't have degrees of what works and what doesn't. It either can metabolize and reproduce, or it can't. Thus, life could not have originated by chance (unless you like dealing with numbers that are tens of millions of digits on the right side of a decimal, that is). "Another common misunderstanding of evolution. It doesn't affect individuals, it affects groups. Speciation occurs when enough subtle changes build up in the group's gene pool so as to make them unable to breed with other groups." That wouldn't work, because then you could end up with three groups, where A could reproduce with B, and B could reproduce with C, but A couldn't reproduce with C. That doesn't work, because, by definition, if they can reproduce, then they're of the same species. If A can reproduce with B, they're of the same species. If B can reproduce with C, they're of the same species. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Thus A and C are of the same species, and can reproduce. That means that you can not use subtle mutations in whole groups to explain the origins of species. "Besides, the breeding definition of species is by no means an ironclad rule. As you would expect given evolutionary theory, some species are still related enough to interbreed." Uh, no. They can't. Again, if two individuals can reproduce, they have to be of the same species, by definition. DT: "I could sit here and rip your doctrines to shreds using nothing but the Bible (but I don't feel like it)." Uh, no. You couldn't. First of Two tried. He failed. You wanna have a go at it, then meet your newest ICQ buddy. "Couldn't evolution possibly have happened?" No, at least, not without extreme divine intervention, which is what I'm trying to show you all. And no one say "All things are possible through Christ...", for I will smite thee mightily. [IMG]http://flare.solareclipse.net/smile.gif[/IMG] Liam: "BTW, I challenge you to go to a school in the UK ad find more that 5 kids who support creationsim. Go on." And I challenge you to go to any school, anywhere, and find more than five kids who can actually explain the details of either theory. Actually, I challenge you to find five scientists who actually AGREE on the details of evolution. That might be harder. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3