Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
And you apparently are not young, which is proof that age does not necessarily bring wisdom, or even knowledge.
Matthew Chapter 6:26 26 Look at the birds of the air;
they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and
yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of
more value than they?
Chapter 10:29-31. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a
farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground
without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head
are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of
more value than many sparrows.
[... As you said, “All of life involves faith”...}
Even the animals understand that life comes from God.
“But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And
the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. Or
speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the
fish of the sea declare to you. The life of every living
creature and the spirit in every human body are in God’s
hands.” (JOB 12:7-10)
This is a religious belief. It is flatly contradicted by scientific findings.
Here is one such finding: In a cave in southern Alaska a partial skeleton was found, and dated to 10,300 years ago. The mtDNA was sequenced and found to be a particular haplotype (D4h3). That same haplotype was found in living individuals stretching from California to the tip of South America.
This contuity of mtDNA across the date purported for the global flood (4,350 years ago) shows that there was no depopulation in the western US with repopulation by the mtDNA haplotype of Noah's female kin from the Near East.
And this is just one of many bits of evidence which disproves the flood myth.
Believe what you want, but don't bet the rent money on it.
You apparently don't know however that evolution theory is about evolution of species and not the origins of life.
As an organic chemist, describe for me the chemical processes involved in the Biblical creation. Did God use the laws of physics, or did He use magic?
I have an autistic son. Autism is probably genetic, so there is a possibility. I appreciate the Christian thoughts too.
Could you poit to one of those verses please?
Isaiah 40:22 simply says "circle of the Earth" and clearly is talking about the horizon. There are may places, including Isaiah that speaks of the "four boundaries", or "four corners" of the earth. Whatever topography they were talking about, it wasn't a sphere.
Could you poit to one of those verses please?
Isaiah 40:22 simply says "circle of the Earth" and clearly is talking about the horizon. There are may places, including Isaiah that speaks of the "four boundaries", or "four corners" of the earth. Whatever topography they were talking about, it wasn't a sphere.
Thanks for the ping, Dave.
What comes to my mind is the religion moderator’s recent posting and discussion of the new rules on religion. It seems like he needs convincing that Atheism/Darwinism/Scientism/WhateverItIsm is a religion that should come under his purview at FR.
Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems
Victor Polyak, Carol Hill, Yemane Asmerom
Abstract: The age and evolution of the Grand Canyon have been subjects of great interest and debate since its discovery. We found that cave mammillaries (water table indicator speleothems) from nine sites in the Grand Canyon showed uranium-lead dating evidence for an old western Grand Canyon on the assumption that groundwater table decline rates are equivalent to incision rates. Samples in the western Grand Canyon yielded apparent water table decline rates of 55 to 123 meters per million years over the past 17 million years, in contrast to eastern Grand Canyon samples that yielded much faster rates (166 to 411 meters per million years). Chronology and inferred incision data indicate that the Grand Canyon evolved via headward erosion from west to east, together with late-stage (3.7 million years ago) accelerated incision in the eastern block. Source
I don’t think it advisable to lobby for every thread addressing evolution to be placed in the Religion forum.
***Not every thread, just to have the same kind of system. This thread would be an obvious “open” thread under such a system. I doubt that was the original intent of the person asking for help.
Still less to try to drag a moderator into that argument.
***Please explain why.
So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
"Atheism" however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
Horizon?.. Thats not what it says at all..
...no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
Thank you.
“So to avoid addressing those inconvenient truths, you (they) shove it off the plank into the murky and ambiguous seas of “abiogenesis” and claim it’s not part of evolution.”
You are absolutely right that if you reject supernatural causes, you must accept natural causes.
This does not mean that we know in detail what a given cause is for all given effects.
What we can demonstrate is that over the history of civilization, the number of things once considered to be of supernatural causes, like disease for example, has gone down and the number proved to have natural causes has gone up continuously.
Further, there has NEVER been a single thing proven to be of supernatural origin.
The evolution of chemical complexity can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Simple viruses have bee created by biologists. The mechanisms for evolution of species has been demonstrated experimentally, and proven to my satisfaction by genetics.
So, what we are left with is the knowledge gap of the cause of life between viruses and prokaryotes. This gap in scientific knowledge is where you say God lives. In my opinion, it is just one more subject for science.
When faced with the choice between science and magic, I choose science. This is not due to some emotional preference; it is baced on the fact that in the past, I would have always been right to do so.
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138.
***I posted essentially the same request.
The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
***My perspective is that Scientism is becoming a religion. Look at how vigorously its adherents defend it. Look at the definition of a religion, and see if it applies. At the edge of our human knowledge, Scientism becomes a faith like any other.
So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
***No interest by whom? Moderators? Or participants?
“Atheism” however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
***Glad to hear it. If Atheism is a proper tag for inclusion, it could also be a proper tag for exclusion on a caucus thread, similar to something like the catholics all talking amongst themselves about whether Mary was assumed to heaven and how to deal with vociferous critics on that issue. It seems like this should be some kind of caucus thread in terms of the atheism tag that you mention. Perhaps that’s what the original poster intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.