You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
So what happened? DId the deity deliberately make fossils look like they were millions of years old. Careful of what you think about that. If you do then the obvious implication is that he was being deliberately deceitful. So if the bible is accurate, then look at the number of legs on a locust. Is it 4 or 6? Do rabbits and hares chew their cud. What part of the bible says that the a day during creation was longer that 24 hours? BTW which version of the bible, the original texts, the King James version, the NIV, Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Jeffersonian, Satanic? Also which translation and how accurate was it, classic example the King James has Moses with a set of hornes on his head. As for most of the rest what reliable and independently verifiable data can you present that does contradict evolutionary theory? As for your so called thought experiment, consider feedback loops, and chaos theory. They provide a much better fit to the data than anything presented by such frauds as Behe and Dembski. BTW talking about him check out this PDF (it shows how wrong Dembski is) http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Pandasthumb.pdf As for irreducible complexity, well it looks like its been reduced http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/ On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Kris Sisk <ks...@gckschools.com> wrote: > >> Shouldn't you be looking for 6,000 year old dinosaur fossils? > > Heh, right. Because I believe the Bible I must also believe there were > dinosaurs 6000 years ago....get real. I realize you have a very jaded view of > me because I admitted to matching some definitions of a fundamentalist and > believe in intelligent design, but I'm not stupid. In fact, let's just cut > off all future jabs at me like this at the knees right now. > > What I believe: > Adam and Eve were real. Even without the Bible to name them at some point in > history there had to have been one man and one woman from whom we all came. > Incidently that's true even if you believe in random chance evolution. > > The earth was made in six days, but not neccessarily six 24 hour periods. A > day in Biblical writing is not always a day as we think of them, especially > when dealing with times outside of the lifetime of the one being addressed or > doing the writing. > > Life as we know it can not possibly be the consequence of random chance. A > single celled organism is a nanomachine with hundreds of moving parts > configured with a quadrary programming language. We're infinately more > complex than that. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen randomly. > > Did it happen literally and exactly as described in Genesis? I believe it's > probably an approximation that was severely dumbed down for the a society > that hadn't even considered the science physics yet. > > Carbon dating is not perfectly accurate. We know that volcanic erruptions can > throw off it's accuracy and we also know that at several points in geological > history the Earth was littered with active volcanos. That said it's still the > most effective way to get the age of ancient objects we have. The 4 billion > year mark that geologists give us, while probably not right, is probably much > closer to the mark than the 6000 year mark that people get by going through > Biblical geneologies. > > Evolution does exist. Dogs evolved out of wolves, short beaked finches and > long beaked finches have a common ancestor, etc etc. However I don't believe > that an entirely new species could evolve out of an existing one without > divine guidance. The mutations between the two species would have to be > massive and come very close together. > > I've never seen a plausible argument against irreducible complexity. Even if > the parts of the cellular mechanisms evolved in other parts of the cell they > would still need to come together in a single generation, which would be a > much larger jump than natural selection allows for. If there's another > arugment against it I've never seen it. It seems to me that the argument has > been dismissed by the scientific community at large based solely on who > presented it without being given a chance to stand on it's own merits. That's > bad science. > > Now I spend a whole lot of time figuring out how science and my religion can > co-exist. I do this because I can not logically accept the possiblilty of > such an ordered universe as ours without God and my own religion makes more > sense to me than any other I've come across. I could get into the more > spiritual reasons that I choose to follow Christ as opposed to Muhammad or > Buhda or any of a dozen other religions, but that would be outside the scope. > > Frankly I don't appreciate the attacks at my intelligence just because I have > a different world view than you do. You seem to be fond of them. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:319049 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
