Posted on 04/07/2016 11:56:15 AM PDT by Heartlander
>> Please note that while claiming to be “scientific,” every piece of evidence found is not treated as a possible refutation of evolution, but often as a heroic struggle to fit that evidence into the evolutionary framework. <<
Name one.
I can show where science has used its process to refute attempted fakes.
>>Being an evolutionist, I presume you also an Darwinist.<<
Neither term exists, except in the minds of a scad few and even then there is no agreement as to their meaning.
>> Evolution by contrast s a plausible scientific theory.<<
proven and buttressed in multiple contexts. Creationists think that playing the Abiogenesis card canard is some sort of win. If Abiogenesis must be explained vis a vis TTOE, it must also be explained in terms of physics, chemistry, astronomy and all the other natural sciences.
As such a demand is not made on them, it cannot be made on TTOE. TTOE explains what it explains and need explain no more.
It is always frustrating dealing with people who do not understand science on a very scientific topic. It is like explaining calculus to someone who does not understand arithmetic.
>>Ever see a Darwin Fish? They make sense because evolution is religion.<<
They are a sarcastic expression of frustration. Nothing more.
Man, you got THAT right. Still, I'd like us Christians to be able to reconcile our intellect and faith with science. Not every scientist is a pagan/atheist/spawn of Satan. Some of us believe in the Risen Christ. God does not frown on us asking "why". In fact, I'm certain he wants us to.
Still, you're right; tough crowd here! I'm even told my screen name I've had for years is Satanic and I'm an evolutionist!
Mind you, I didn't say I was, but just asked some questions.
BTW, to all, my screen name is from a science fiction book written in 1961. About nuclear war and survival in rural America. A GREAT read--see my profile!
I love how some people here think they are tough Christian warriors and therefore have the right to insult people for Christ.
How did Jesus put it?
Matthew 7:16
Shameful.
The father of the big bang theory himself was a Jesuit Priest doing science in the Vatican. Geogres Lamaitre. The term "big bang" was to be applied later, he described it as a "primordial atom"
It may be of interest that the big bang was resisted because it implies a moment of creation, which is a rather difficult thing to reconcile with atheism. Lamaitre himself assured naturalistic colleagues that they could find a way to reconcile the theory with naturalism...although for myself I find such reconciliation very problematic.
Oh there you go AndyTheBear, you ignorant twit...he was not in the vatican when he came up with the theory.
Shut up AndyTheBear, you are always stalking and trolling me.
Following “the WORD” whatever you mean exactly, was not possible any more after the fall of mankind. Salvation was left as the only option and people proud about how well they obey the bible might actually be big hypocrites. It’s probably those who are honest about how poorly they obey the bible that give us the best Christian witness here in the world.
People who insist on having a wider worldview than mere “science” — that in fact insist on putting “science” in a context — probably ARE frustrating to you. You can’t cage their minds.
Hmmm...Darwin didn't this so - he discussed how his theory relates to human morality and ethics in Descent of Man. If morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective fixed morality as stated by Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson in The Evolution of Ethics:
Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.See also - Evolutionary Ethics.Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
>>People who insist on having a wider worldview than mere “science” — that in fact insist on putting “science” in a context — probably ARE frustrating to you. You can’t cage their minds.<<
My worldview is much wider than mere science. I have a lot of knowledge and interest in many other areas, especially in the spiritual realm.
But I know the difference. And I know science.
The frustration is with people who speak from ignorance.
Which are legion.
Oh, so what is your knowledge in the spiritual realm?
First of all, does it embrace the Savior?
And being able to quibble about “science” does not a relevant ignorance establish. The pattern of moss on a tree does not outline the forest.
>>Hmmm...Darwin didn’t this so<<
Irrelevant. The thoughts Darwin had beyond TTOE are not in the Theory itself. Quoting (or quotemining) Darwin is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Not only is not a winner, it is a non-starter.
>>Hmmm...Darwin didn’t this so<<
Irrelevant. The thoughts Darwin had beyond TTOE are not in the Theory itself. Quoting (or quotemining) Darwin is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Not only is not a winner, it is a non-starter.
>>And being able to quibble about “science” does not a relevant ignorance establish. <<
Understanding fundamentals is far from quibbling. A lay person may know where moss grows, bit science can explain why.
Anyone can plug their computer into the wall, very few can explain what electricity is much less what is happening in that computer.
>>First of all, does it embrace the Savior?<<
Indeed it does. I have been a Christian my whole life (although I am a lapsed Catholic).
I have picked up enough Latin and Aramaic to read passages of the Old Testament and Torah in the original (as best as we know) — Greek? Forget it. Those APL characters will have to wait until I retire and have some real time.
I am also familiar with other spiritual pursuits such as Buddhism, Hinduism and the beliefs of Mesoamerican cultures. I know a good bit about the accursed islam — enough to know all we believe about how bad it is is 100% correct.
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Andy. Or schizophrenic either.
I know of Geoges Lamaitre.
When Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. he told the Pope
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”
If we were built by a process which did not have us in mind but is merely tuned for survival, then like it or not, there must be a Darwinian explanation for our thoughts and behavior. Put another way, one cannot claim that Darwinism made our brains but has no bearing on the brain's contents. This is what makes Darwin's theory unique to science as most people familiar with his theory know.
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.