Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[Dimensio]

Virtually every Christian (not to mention many of other faiths) would adamently disagree with the contention by evolutionists who masquerade as "believers" that God's "likeness" and "image" resemble anything close to apes

There are a number of problems with your comment.

First, not every theist is a Christian. The Christian deity is not the only god whose existence has been accepted and whose person has been worshiped throughout human history.
Second, I don't know of any theist evolutionist who claims that God's likeness or image resembles an ape.
Third, humans arguably do resemble apes -- certainly moreso than many other creatures on ths planet.
Fourth, unless you know for yourself what the God you believe in looks like, don't criticize other interpretations of his/her/His/Her/its/Its appearance.

[cruiserman]

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

End taxpayer support of schooling, and the debate disappears.

[narby]

Honestly, I don't know. Best way to do it is to define a specific means for testing a deity -- an experiment that would produce a result that has no other known explanation apart from a deity's involvement.

This is one reason why it is a stupid thing for believers to bring up evolution. Eventually the argument comes around to "proving" the existence of God.

If believers had any brains, they'd say, "sure I believe in evolution, and God did it". But they're idiots, and they attempt to bring science into faith, and at least some (many?) people will come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Kind of like shooting themselves in the foot.

[hove]

Evolution vs. Creation has to be the most tired thread on FR. To the Creationists: You don't need to change the world to conform to your views. Your faith is stronger that that....isn't it? To the Evolutionists: Evolution is a theory...not a fact. There is much science hasn't proven. Maybe Creationists are on to something. Open your minds.

Now we can put this relatively insignificant issue to bed.

[maryz]

At this time I can’t remember exactly what ailments leeching is designed to cure.

When bloodletting was a popular treatment, it was (I've read) used only for conditions which were attributed -- rightly or wrongly -- to too much blood, e.g., fever.

The modern use of leeches I've heard of (unfortunately with pictures) is to clean up wounds. It was a few years ago that I saw the article in the Boston Globe -- I forget whether it's just in the case of surgical wounds to promote healing or other wounds. (I'm afraid the pictures made the deepest impression -- anyone who puts a leech on me without being sure I've been sedated and tied up will have his own wounds to worry about!)

[Dimensio]

It is a fact that when you drop something it falls. That is why it is called “The law of gravity” not the “theory of gravity.”

Gravitational theory does not explain that 'things fall when you drop them'. It offers an explanation regarding the nature of matter and space that predicts that objects should fall when dropped because of the relationship between Earth and the object dropped. It is an explanation of how things drop and why rather than just "things fall", and it could be inaccurate.

[dubyagee]

Everything in science is theory. Many creationists like to ignore that because it makes "evolution is only a theory" sound like a more meaningful statement.

Most everything in science can be proven through experimentation and observed with the eyes. Evolution cannot. Evolution faces the same problem creation does, it cannot be observed, therefore other options should be explored, but all to often they are ruled out as non-science. Is this not a grave error on behalf of science?

[r9etb]

The mere statement that because we, as humans don't comprehend Him He therefore doesn't exist, just doesn't hold water.

Precisely. And beyond that is the difficulty of devising an experiment to "prove" the existence of a God who, if He existed, would have the incredibly vastness implied a God who gives His name as "I AM WHO I AM," or "I will be what I will be." (Exodus 3:14)

Theologian Karl Barth adressed the difficulty of proof -- and noted that God removes the necessity by revealing His existence to us.

[narby]

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness;" (Genesis 1:26)

So how did God do it? Just snap His fingers and the molecules of Man instantly appeared in place? Or did He make Man out of some matter that He already had at hand?

Like a pre-human perhaps?

By the way, the "monkey" thing is a derrogatory item thrown about by people who don't understand Evolution. Both "monkeys" and man evolved from a common species that died out millions of years ago. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys.

[A2J]

Fourth, unless you know for yourself what the God you believe in looks like, don't criticize other interpretations of his/her/His/Her/its/Its appearance.

Oh, but I DO know what He looks like.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

Jesus perfectly resembled His Father and history is replete with information that Jesus was a man, not an ape.

[dubyagee]

But there is no genuine scientific rebuttal yet found to evolution. If there were, it would be big news, and big science would study it.

Scientists reject anything that leads to evidence of creation, ie. the placement of earth in the universe, the order of the universe. If you reject the evidence of design, simply because you can say 'well, what is design', you are rejecting evidence before your very nose.

[steve-b]

Scientists and mathematicians recognize that there are "laws" and there are "theories."

You can't construct a valid argument using rubber definitions. (You can, however, wriggle your way out of an impeachment with that technique... but I digress.)

In science, a "theory" is a general explanation for a set of phenomena (e.g. the Theory of Gravity explains the falling of objects, the orbits of planets, etc). A "law" is a mathematical relationship associated with a theory (e.g. Kepler's Third Law, derived from the Theory of Gravity, states that the square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of its distance from the sun).

[jim35]

I think the proof of a supreme being lies in the every-day wonders which surround us. We see the proof everywhere we look, and can feel the life within us that didn't simply spring up out of nothingness. Life itself is proof of God. Show me the evidence that the soul (or mind, of you prefer) is nothing more than an accident. Do you believe in souls/minds? Show me yours. That will be your proof.

[A2J]

End taxpayer support of schooling, and the debate disappears.

You've got my vote.

[dubyagee]

That's why Cobb County has no leg to stand on. To single out the theory of evolution for a disclaimer that is not equally applied to the theory of gravity, the theory of infectious disease, the theory of relativity, etc. is facially sectarian.

Those can be observed.

[Dimensio]

I think the proof of a supreme being lies in the every-day wonders which surround us. We see the proof everywhere we look, and can feel the life within us that didn't simply spring up out of nothingness.

Argument from incredulity.

Do you believe in souls/minds?

"Mind" is another term for conscious. I don't believe in souls.

[moneyrunner]

”The murders of Anne Nicole Smith…”

The last I heard, Ms. Smith has not died yet. So much for your theory.

[oc-flyfish]

An absolutely great source of information on creationism, evolution, and science can be found at Reasons to Believe.  I attended one of their Genesis Seminars back about 8 years ago and was totally blown away.

For those of you who want rational scientific evidence check them out.  Most of the stuff they have went totally over my head but would really connect with those who have a scientific background.

[Dimensio]

Okay. So you are assuming the appearance of God based upon your interpretation of the New Testament. Not everyone shares your interpretation, nor does everyone who believes in a god use the New Testament as a source of divine information.