"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

He does make quite a leap to the "family tree". Many such leaps seem to be
accepted as fact. The primordial soup explanation has yet to be proven and
the experiment cited as proof has already been debunked but it still finds
it's way into textbooks as fact. The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations. It
seems that our course of institutional investigations have lead to
censorship through active measures against those who don't fully buy into
it.

Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If
any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

That isn't what I meant. I was speaking of those functions without which
the organism is not viable. Your choice of a life form without the Blood
Clotting Cascade is an example of a life form that perhaps was designed as
food or at least highly expendable otherwise it would have been designed
with self-repair and defensive mechanisms in mind. Even if you don't
believe in ID, you indicate some knowledge of the kind of complex processes
I allude to.

The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

I didn't mention the Eye. How is it relevant? Bacteria is still life and
still highly complex at the molecular level.

So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

How is this a straw man? What "things had to happen first" for any life?
You justify my argument that it takes a leap of faith. Do you mean to say
that life cannot be created if we can't do it?


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

Darwin was a devout Atheist and that was the basic a priori of his
investigations and theory. We know that life forms adapt to their
surroundings. It is obvious. We don't find them changing from one species
to another. We don't even find fossil evidence of "missing link" organisms
that prove the great transitions of DNA between species.

Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced
it.
Who's next?

Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

So you do believe in heaven? Or not? The shooters at Columbine where
wearing T-shirts that said "Natural Selection" and spent lots of time on
neo-Nazi web sites. It is a matter of evidence. We can't cross examine
them under oath (?) so they can't answer for their actions.

Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

This was bull crap propaganda so that he would have less trouble with
Christians, Like Obama, who is obviously preaching Marxist Secular Humanism
in his speeches, and evidence suggests, sought out his home church as a
forum for his political advancement after he lost to Bobby Rush for "not
being black enough" as his constituents put it. I don't think it imparts a
benefit of the doubt if he is a Christian for fleeting moments when he finds
himself in a church.

Not only was Hitler a known liar, he actually invoked a half-baked pagan
religion to support his Aryan beliefs.


"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover
one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

Manifest Destiny and Evolution come together as justifications of the
westward movements, genocide of the indigent American population, as well as
most of the genocides, mass murders and revolutions in the 19 and 20th
centuries.

And Jeremiah Wright gave sermons too. Citing preachers tells more about
you. Let's not go there because Jesus himself stated that "there will come
false prophets". You need to work on your discernment.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution,
and no science disproving it. It takes almost as much faith to not
believe in evolution now as it does to believe in a flat earth.

"Flat earth" is nowhere in the Bible. What evidence supports that all life
is an adaptation from a single organism? What evidence supports that DNA
can change radically and be viable. Indeed prove that genetic mutation
actually can result in anything but a loss in material, thus result in a
De-evolution instead of evolution? Perhaps we are all adapted from ferns.
There is significantly more genetic material in ferns than most in the
animal kingdom. What can the new life form viably reproduce with. This
would seem to be most possible with reproduction by cell division, but
individual survivors would seem to be food at the point it emerged. Where
are the new single celled species that have sprung up spontaneously from
existing species?

Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research
in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served
as a spur to scientists and research.

Hold the presses! You mean they aren't just idiot superstitious morons?
But have actually researched the Macro Evolution theory as it applies to the
emergence of life and found it lacking?

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect
your faith.

That isn't my argument. Please don't assume that the above Blog "Either-Or"
arguments are the only ones out there. Is it your argument that no matter
how life came to be at all by any means could not have been spurred on by an
unseen force? Or that every miracle can be explained by accident or natural
progression of events? Perhaps the predictions that were fulfilled in the
Bible were simply intelligent assessment by natural progression. Although
you could point to those, it doesn't explain it all away.

Here is the philosophical problem. If the Universe follows a purely
predictable mechanism, or a combination of predictability and seemingly
random events, It does not prove or disprove a design. At this point, I
can't pose a definitive theory of how the Earth, Solar System, Universe or
Life came to be. The Bible is not a scientific journal, It is a historical
journal penned by those who didn't consider a scientific approach to
explaining any event. In many cases it is a narrative and in others it is a
legal documentary record of events, observations and inspirations. It is a
fascinating concept that it could have actually been orchestrated by the
Divine. Perhaps we could agree that although the scientific explanation is
lacking in scripture, we shouldn't dismiss the idea that there is no truth
underlying the explanations that is yet to be revealed. Once upon a time,
one could investigate while still believing in a creator. That seems to
have lost ground to Political constraints. My thought is that Macro
Evolution has become only one of many thoughts forced on a captive audience
by condescending liberals that are bringing society to crisis.


But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis, is just as wrong as the flat earth of four
corners, the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's
shabby treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion,
however. The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The
truth was in fact no threat at all.

Not my argument either. You make a great many assumptions of my arguments
and dismiss them as "straw man".
"There will come false prophets". they will be known by their works.

Back to antennas now.......