Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How can Science for Speciation explain the diversity of life?

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    ... Glad to get this confirmation. Strange then that when I asked you what you expected if two rabbits (of appropriately opposite genders) over 6-12 months,
    Message 1 of 320 , Apr 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Charles P: Please tell Gluadys that I agree
      > that rabbits multiply.
      >
      >

      Glad to get this confirmation. Strange then that when I asked you what you expected if two rabbits (of appropriately opposite genders) over 6-12 months, you replied you were not sure what to expect.

      However, now I am reassured that you really do know what to expect. So we can continue exploring the second piece of evidence for evolution: in spite of the multiplicative faculty of rabbits and other species, a population very often does not increase in size.

      You have already indicated this is something you have observed personally.

      What is your theory as to why this situation exists?
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of complexity,
      Message 320 of 320 , Oct 19, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not
        a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of
        complexity, specified or not.

        Charles P: Evolution is easily recognized without knowing anything about
        "The Evolutioner". Natural selection is easily recognized without knowing
        anything about "The Natural Selector". Design is easily recognized without
        knowing anything about "The Designer".

        Perry Marshall: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/ G�del�s
        Incompleteness Theorem says: �Anything you can draw a circle around cannot
        explain itself without referring to something outside the circle �
        something you have to assume but cannot prove.�

        Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
        definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
        questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
        verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
        tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
        science.

        Charles P: Evolution is inside the circle. Natural selection is inside
        the circle. Design is inside the circle. All three are easily recognized
        by the average reader without having to debate definitions. All three can
        can't explain themselves without referring to something outside the circle
        -- something we have to assume but can't prove.

        James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29849 As
        I like to repeat, if Newton could not get it right, what hope is there
        for the rest of us? Vannevar Bush wrote that science is an
        "endless frontier." We never get final answers. But then, we never run out
        of fascinating questions to ask.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.