How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[apothanein kerdos]

Darwinian Evolution deals with origins.

No it doesn't, but I will oblige your request so you will shut up.

Philosophers cling to debating words but scientists have much better things to do.

It does deal with origins...maybe it would be proper to say that Neo-Darwinism deals with origins. You won't find too many scientists or philosophers that disagree with what I'm saying.

Without philosophy nothing could operate, nothing would work, and peopel wouldn't think. In fact, the idea you just espoused is a philosophy.

[apothanein kerdos]

AK - do you (as a theist) agree or disagree with Phillip Johnson's assessment that there is no need to accept

[apothanein kerdos]

AK - do you (as a theist) agree or disagree with Phillip Johnson's assessment that there is no need to accept

[apothanein kerdos]

Yes

[apothanein kerdos]

Yes

Doesn

[Guest]

Did Jesus Christ raise from the dead?

The Godless, The Passionless and The Preacher

Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection

And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Acts 17:18-32

Eeny, Meeny, Mighty, Moe

Never Listen To Old Brother Joe

Pick The One From Heaven Above

Pick The Lord Jesus The One With Love!

Godless Evolution -Or- Maker of All Things

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Did Jesus Christ raise from the dead?

Love, Joe

[apothanein kerdos]

Yes

Doesn

[apothanein kerdos]

I have no problem with biological changes

[The Lorax]

Doesn’t Darwinian evolution demand progression, and an increase of new genetic information?

I hope you are playing devil's advocate here, horizoneast, because this last quote reveals a stunning ignorance of evolutionary theory.

The theory of evolution does NOT define "progression" as "an increase in new genetic information." I'm guessing you crafted that definition yourself.

Viral DNA insertions represent new genetic information. Polyploid cancer cells contain new information. Is that progression? ...Of course not. (Only according to your definition.)

If these fish were once “sighted” it would appear they have regressed by the loss (or corruption) of such genetic information.

No. If certain traits become unhelpful, like eyes in cave fish, then it is adaptive to lose the genetic info coding for eyes. That is a good thing; it is not "regression" in any Darwinian sense.

[apothanein kerdos]

I've e-mailed both Michael and Phil to ask what they think of this whole issue. I'll post both replies when I get them.