OK. I am not going to try to convince anyone the earth is a globe - and not flat. Yet there are pea-brained people that think just that. Believe in a Flat World? FINE. If you aren't on the evolution bandwagon - If you think a magic dude or specific plan was necessary to cause it all to happen - FINE. You are limited. Be stupid. I don't care! Evolution is real. The creator is the mechanism itself. Old holy presumptions are simply ignorant and why anyone holds on them is NOT our problem. Let's move on and just FORGET this creationism crap.
Let the apologist speak for the weaknesses of their own faith. But I don't care to listen. -WaV On Jan 11, 2008 9:02 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, let's all make sure we are using the same terms. > > Evolution – a variation of a species passed on from one generation to the > next – is an observed fact. But to say that that small variation > multiplied a million times over billions of years is responsible for life > on Earth as we know it -- is a theory. > > By definition, a theory is a hypothesis that has been substantiated, but > not proven. Many aspects of that theory have been shown to be true, but > there are many aspects of that theory that have not even been > substantiated. > > For example, one critical part of the theory that evolution resulted in > life on Earth is the jump from amino acids to viable DNA/RNA sequences. > As we all know, even the simplest, single cell life forms on Earth have > DNA sequences that hold enough information to fill an encyclopedia. And > the order of that sequence is so critical that something as subtle as the > equivalent of a misspelled word would make the life form non-viable. > > We have theories about how some amino acids were floating around in some > primordial soup, and somehow some energy source jolted the mixture to come > up with a single cell life form (it occurred in the south of France if you > are a believer in Star Trek), but we have been unable to prove that > theory. > > And it is this specific gap in the theory that caused atheist Antony Flew > in 2004 to observe that the statistical odds of the primordial jolt > producing a viable DNA sequence were so astronomical as to make that > theory "unbelievable". Creationist love to use the analogy that it would > be like a printing press exploding and a complete copy of the Encyclopedia > Briticanna falling out. > > And this is what re-ignited the non-religious intelligent design theory. > Contrary to some reports, Antony never said he believed in a deity, but > rather, he said that some sort of intelligent design was necessary to > overcome the astronomical odds needed to produce a viable DNA sequence. > He makes no claim as to what that intelligent design is, only that it > exists. > Again, this is just another unsubstantiated theory about one of the steps > needed to produce life on Earth as we know it. > > Now, if you go one step further and make some claim that you have specific > knowledge of that intelligent designer, then you have stepped out of > science and into faith. > > --CF > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
