Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,802 Year: 4,059/9,624 Month: 930/974 Week: 257/286 Day: 18/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hey Mark and others
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 18 (31810)
02-09-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NeilUnreal
02-09-2003 8:22 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NeilUnreal, posted 02-09-2003 8:22 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 18 (32773)
02-20-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by abio
02-06-2003 2:53 PM


The thread where this belongs has been closed so I'll post it here:
"Evolution is best to explain the mechanisms, not the creation. Even if the current state of abiogenesis theory is falsified, the fact of evolution remains the same. No matter what your interpretation of either theory, both suggest a young earth (creationists) to be fallible.
--No, not really. I'm a firm believer in Evolution, but I'm a YEC. That evolution has occurred is of no dispute to me, but rather whether it has occurred throughout all geologic time.
"Creationists says-
One must have the faith to believe the complex micro machinery common to all cellular life must have randomly formed out of the elements on earth. No one has even come close to explaining how the ATP synthase motor (required for life) could've formed randomly. If one found an alternator in the jungle, one wouldn't think a chunk of iron gradually eroded into the alternator. One could reasonable conclude design from such a discovery, the same as one could reasonably conclude design in the ATP synthase motor.
Do any of you have suggestions or readings to contradict the creationist? Please remember we are not professors, but mere mortals with science. Thanks. "
--The YEC you've conversed with has indicated several flaws.
--Where he says, "One must have the faith to believe...", you must also have 'faith' to believe that anything has occurred prior the capabilities of direct scientific observation. That which has occurred antecedent to this is inferred from the data. Even still, his usage of 'faith' is a bit fallacious/misleading.
--Where he says:
quote:
If one found an alternator in the jungle, one wouldn't think a chunk of iron gradually eroded into the alternator. One could reasonable conclude design from such a discovery, the same as one could reasonably conclude design in the ATP synthase motor.
--His deduction for ID, is the subjective 'goddidit' argumentum.
--Someone else can take a stab at the phylogeny of ATP synthesis.
-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by abio, posted 02-06-2003 2:53 PM abio has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1506 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 18 (33338)
02-27-2003 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zephan
02-06-2003 9:04 PM


I thought it was 'creation Vs Evolution', but I don't see
how it makes a difference.
'Hulk Vs Thing' 'Thing Vs Hulk' ... all the same
just depends whose comic it's in

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zephan, posted 02-06-2003 9:04 PM Zephan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024