Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science Gestapo's busy
Hutchinson News ^ | 11/21/2012 | MIKE HENRY

Posted on 11/26/2012 2:10:21 AM PST by kathsua

Bill Nye, the so-called "science guy," recently said that the teaching of creation to young people is harmful. I beg to differ.

Does anyone remember Columbine? The shooters were not wearing Christian T-shirts. They were wearing evolutionary t-shirts touting "natural selection." These losers apparently believed that if they were only the results of mutation and natural selection over millions of years, with no God or afterlife, then why not vent their anger and go out with a bang?

----------advertisement-----------

It's little wonder that they were fans of Adolf Hitler, another avid disciple of Darwin, and committed their atrocities on his birthday.

Perhaps it's the dogmatic teaching of evolution that is harmful to young people. Bill Nye and the scientific Gestapo refuse to allow even a hearing for "intelligent design" in the pubic schools. What are they afraid of? The subject of origins clearly has religious connotations for both theism and atheism. It's unfair to accept the evidence for one view as science, and reject the evidence for the other as religion.

Some Christians feel compelled (coerced is more like it) to compromise and accept evolution as God's method of creation. I could do that if the evidence was truly convincing, but it's not. Evolution is simply assumed, not proven.

As Dr. Morris points out, it's an exercise in circular reasoning: They begin with the assumption that evolution is true, proceed to interpret all of the evidence to fit that model, and then offer it as "proof" for evolution. The assumption of evolution becomes the proof for evolution. That's not science. Dr. Wiersbe calls it "a failure to distinguish information from imagination."

I don't mean to insult anybody's religion, but evolution has to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, and it's not always harmless, either, as demonstrated by the Columbine shooters. How much better to teach children that we are here because "In the beginning, God created ...," and because of that, life is full of meaning and purpose, for time and eternity.

Some may laugh at us for believing in Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago, but we laugh at them for believing in molecule to man through mutation and natural selection millions of years ago.

One day we'll see who has the last laugh.


TOPICS: Education; History; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: columbine; creation; evolution; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog; schools
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Evolutionists don't want to allow questions about their beliefs because they have no confidence in those beliefs.
1 posted on 11/26/2012 2:10:38 AM PST by kathsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.


2 posted on 11/26/2012 2:18:32 AM PST by KevinDavis (And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.


3 posted on 11/26/2012 2:18:46 AM PST by KevinDavis (And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said in an interview Monday that the Bible is "probably not" literally true and that a belief that God created the world is compatible with the theory of evolution.

Will President Bush go to the Bad Place?

4 posted on 11/26/2012 2:57:02 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
I don't have a problem with Creationism being taught in schools. As long as it is taught for what it is. One of many Religious theories.
5 posted on 11/26/2012 3:23:20 AM PST by BigCinBigD (...Was that okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: kathsua
Bill Nye and the scientific Gestapo refuse to allow even a hearing for "intelligent design" in the pubic schools. What are they afraid of? The subject of origins clearly has religious connotations for both theism and atheism.

It's not that anyone is "afraid" of anything. It's that the science classroom is not the place to teach religion. If you find discussions of the religious connotations of origins interesting, that's fine, but the appropriate place for those discussions would be in Sunday school or a religious studies class.

Some Christians feel compelled (coerced is more like it) to compromise and accept evolution as God's method of creation. I could do that if the evidence was truly convincing, but it's not. Evolution is simply assumed, not proven.

Christians have accepted for a long time that the actual earth and universe do not match the Biblical descriptions. If you do not believe that the earth is flat, that the sky is a solid shell on which the sun and all stars are fixed, or that all of space outside the earth and its sky/shell is filled with water, then you also do not literally believe the bible.

As Dr. Morris points out, it's an exercise in circular reasoning: They begin with the assumption that evolution is true, proceed to interpret all of the evidence to fit that model, and then offer it as "proof" for evolution. The assumption of evolution becomes the proof for evolution. That's not science. Dr. Wiersbe calls it "a failure to distinguish information from imagination."

Hmm, I wonder what kind of doctors they are? They probably are not doctors of biochemistry like me; they probably aren't even scientists. Yet there they are, being presented as experts in a subject they clearly know nothing about.

Fossils of strange animals that no one has ever seen have been observed ever since there were humans. The existence of those fossils led to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution caused more scientific investigation to collect more data that would either refute or support the theory. So far, all data has been supportive.

In the world of real science, you can't just make up some assertion, call it a theory, and expect anyone to believe you. You have to provide evidence. Anyone claiming there is no evidence of evolution is a liar.

7 posted on 11/26/2012 3:39:19 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua; KevinDavis; Ken H

There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life——spontaneous generation of matter from nothing or special creation (ex nihilo) by a living God Who exists outside of the space-time dimension.

The first explanation was disproved over one-hundred years ago, leaving evolutionary naturalists to either believe and teach a lie as “science” or to move on to another even more impossible explanation: panspermia. Several theories revolve around this idea, including the notion that extraterrestrials do in fact exist and that they seeded our world with life. C. Arthur Clark posited this idea in his book, “Childhoods End.” More recently Richard Dawkins signaled his acceptance of panspermia.

Always seeking the origin of life but never finding it. This means that no matter how persuasive evolutionary theories sound, ultimately all of them are exercises in futility.


8 posted on 11/26/2012 3:41:00 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; kathsua

From the time of the early Church Fathers ‘gnostic’ Christians have been dehistoricizing the Bible, beginning with Genesis. This means that Bush is not positing something new and scientific but rather a very old heresy.


9 posted on 11/26/2012 3:51:15 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
Bill Nye and the scientific Gestapo refuse to allow even a hearing for "intelligent design" in the pubic schools.
I'll bet they don't want to waste time in schools debating "Flat Earthism" either.
10 posted on 11/26/2012 3:53:36 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"If you do not believe that the earth is flat, that the sky is a solid shell on which the sun and all stars are fixed, or that all of space outside the earth and its sky/shell is filled with water, then you also do not literally believe the bible."

Absolute nonsense. That bible doesn't teach any of that.

11 posted on 11/26/2012 3:59:12 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
"The existence of those fossils led to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution caused more scientific investigation to collect more data that would either refute or support the theory. So far, all data has been supportive."

Again total nonsense. The data just isn't there, certainly in the fossel record to support Darwinism. That's why Harvard evolution guru Stephen Gould came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium, to deal with the fact there is no date to support classic Darwinism. The trouble is, there is no data to support puntuated equilibrium either. Science is based on observation and measurement. Evolution has never been observed and the theory can't be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.

12 posted on 11/26/2012 4:02:32 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
Evolution as promoted by those hostile to Christians is athethism which hides behind science.

Real Science can explore the origin of earth and not need to deny the existence of God or insult people of Faith who believe God created the heavens and this earth.

13 posted on 11/26/2012 4:14:52 AM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
"If you do not believe that the earth is flat, that the sky is a solid shell on which the sun and all stars are fixed, or that all of space outside the earth and its sky/shell is filled with water, then you also do not literally believe the bible."

Absolute nonsense. That bible doesn't teach any of that.

Really? You might want to double-check that. That's all based in scripture, along with a lot of other inaccurate notions of the physical earth. Here's a link that contains specific Bible references to a flat earth and other inaccuracies.

Honestly, I am somewhat amused by people who are dead-set on believing that the story of creation is literal, but then go on to deny that every other inaccurate Biblical description of the earth even exists in the Bible.

14 posted on 11/26/2012 4:18:36 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.

Since God created time, maybe a day is a billion years in His realm.

I, too, would rest after 6 billion years of work.

15 posted on 11/26/2012 5:02:19 AM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You’re arguing apples and oranges.

I don’t need a biology book to understand Jesus is my savior. I also don’t need a scientist to explain how God created the universe.


16 posted on 11/26/2012 5:04:16 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

“Creationism is also a myth”

Prove it.


17 posted on 11/26/2012 5:06:01 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Not a single one of those references has anything to do with the earth being flat. That God has fixed the earth “firm and unmoveable” in its courses is pretty consistent with modern science. Our revolutions around the sun have been the same for thousands of years. And whether scripture is to be taken literal or allegorically depends entirely on genre and context. I’m always amused by people who have never even read the bible presuming to criticise it.


18 posted on 11/26/2012 5:08:43 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
"Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000."

According to the science of Einstein and general relativity, time is relative depending on a variety of variables such as velocity and gravitational force.

19 posted on 11/26/2012 5:10:24 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

“Evolution has never been observed and the theory can’t be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.”

Spirited: Exactly. Furthermore, true science can know nothing about events that occured before time, life, conscious awareness and death even existed.

In this sense, contemporary evolutionary naturalism resides alongside of all pagan evolutionary cosmogonies extending back to the ancient Babylonian Enuma Elish which speaks of all things emerging (evolving) out of already existing primordial waters (matter).

In his international bestseller, “The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality,” France’s preeminent contemporary philosopher Andre Comte Sponville confesses that though he knows God exists “straight up” (outside the space-time dimension) he is nevertheless offended by Jesus Christ God incarnate.

In a general sense Sponville speaks for all Westerners who are uncomfortable with or outright offended by Jesus Christ God incarnate. And having rejected Him they must in turn reject eternal life in Paradise and instead anchor their hopes in nihilism, the “nothingness” that is left to them: spontaneous generation and evolutionary naturalism along with the idea that “We are already in the kingdom. Eternity is now.” (p. 206)


20 posted on 11/26/2012 5:11:03 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
The complete title for Darwin's tome.

Judge for yourself where it leads.

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION
OR THE
PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES
IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE

21 posted on 11/26/2012 5:15:56 AM PST by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

The evidence for evolution, as revealed by God, is abundant. If you choose not to believe it that is your choice.

But don’t expect people to agree with nor respect that choice.


22 posted on 11/26/2012 5:16:14 AM PST by GalaxyAB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GalaxyAB; GrinFranklin
Exactly. bttt

And just which theory of evolution are we talking about, anyhow? :)

<>

"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago. .....

"....once man consciously enters the sensorium of time and space, he is implicitly aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. These are the things that define man, not his genome. ....."

Creation Myths of the Tenured

<>

"what you don't know" is "more relevant than what you do know." "....what we know is just a tiny fraction of what there is to know. But more problematically, so much of what we know just isn't so..." HERE

23 posted on 11/26/2012 7:59:14 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Obama's Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies ~ Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
Bill Nye, the self-styled "science guy," would also like to silence the half of the community teaching the scientific method who don't believe in anthropomorphic global warming.

He's a popular figure, but about as credible as a masked wrestler.

He's demonstrably harmful to all advocates of the scientific method.

There is no final conflict between facts, and Christians and "Sciencismists" are united by a belief that truth exists, though both also believe truth, on the level of natural order, can never be known exhaustively.

As a believer in Christ, as one who believes that Jesus Christ is who he was reliably reported to be, I do not pretend to know how much time passed between the first and second verses of Genesis. Bishop Usher's timeline is not sound doctrine, and it never was.

The distinction between those who believe Truth exists and can be discovered and those who think pursuit of final truth is vain is a much eeper chasm than the popular but false dichotomy separating Creationists and Evolutionists.

Both groups believe in a uniformity of natural causes, though their loudest proponents would be at pains to understand how this separates both groups from the majority of people living in darkness.

Christians believe in a uniformity of natural causes, but they do not believe it to be a closed loop.

That is the only, though very important, distinction between these two touchy groups fighting for state sovereignty.

At the heart of popular evolution is the prior assumption of a uniformity of natural causes as a closed system. That assumption is an article of faith.

That makes it a religion.

24 posted on 11/26/2012 8:01:39 AM PST by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life

People who claim there are only two possible explanations for anything are either knaves or fools.

25 posted on 11/26/2012 8:26:56 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Anyone remember the hundreds of millions murdered by these “smart” atheists in the Soviet Union? How about China, Viet Nam, Cuba...?

“Science gestapo” is a good name for them. Is this guy gay? Behind a lot of this smash mouth anti-Christian rage in the name of science, is a fanny longing for the kid next door.


26 posted on 11/26/2012 9:02:09 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
"People who claim there are only two possible explanations for anything are either knaves or fools."

"...the intrinsic relation between man and mystery is not "prepositional" but essential. This relation is deeper than language, as language too is predicated upon it. If there were no mystery, why then there would be absolutely nothing to talk about and no one to say or hear it. You know the type.

bttt

27 posted on 11/26/2012 9:26:08 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Obama's Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies ~ Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

OB: People who claim there are only two possible explanations for anything are either knaves or fools.

Spirited: And some people-—you for example-—are gullible, shallow thinkers. Read on:

“I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores,” confessed Sir Julian Huxley, former president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin’s colleague Thomas Huxley.

We objected to Biblical morality “because it interfered with our sexual freedom,” said Aldous Huxley in agreement.

“I do not want to believe in God,” confessed Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. “Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution,” said Wald in a Scientific American magazine article.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” Richard Lewontin (b. 1929), PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University)

Paul Davies said elsewhere:

“… Darwin’s celebrated tome On the Origin of Species, which had been published just three years before Pasteur’s experiments, sought to discredit the need for God to create the species by showing how one species can transmute into another. But Darwin’s account left open the problem of how the first living thing came to exist. Unless life had always existed, at least one species — the first — cannot have come to exist by transmutation from another species, only by transmutation from nonliving matter. Darwin himself wrote, some years later: ‘I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of so-called Spontaneous Generation.’ Yet, in the absence of a miracle, life could have originated only by some sort of spontaneous generation. Darwin’s theory of evolution and Pasteur’s theory that only life begets life cannot both have been completely right.” (The Fifth Miracle, 1999, p. 83, Paul Davies (b. 1946), Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science)

Davies naturally hoped that spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) might eventually prove true. But after more than one hundred years of combining inert chemicals in the vain hope that life might finally emerge, Davies and many other naturalists have abandoned abiogenesis in favor of panspermia.

Panspermia is the idea that life on earth was accidentally seeded by meteorites containing the essential building blocks of life or perhaps by highly evolved extraterrestrials who for billions of years have been guiding the evolution of man. The extraterrestrial idea was favored by Arthur C. Clarke in his book, “Childhood’s End” and a variation on this theme has recently been advanced by Davies, Francis Crick, and Ralph Pudritz of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. (Fall of mankind, L. Kimball, Renew America, June 20, 2012)

Panspermia does not solve the origin of life problem. It merely moves it out into deep space.

Louis Pasteur definitively disproved spontaneous generation (abiogenesis), the indispensable ground of evolutionary naturalism. So not only is naturalism an empty vain conceit but so too are Darwinism and Teilhardism, which springboards off of Darwinism.

All of this means that the triune Creator exists and further that wittingly or unwittingly, evolutionary naturalists have made a covenant with death.


28 posted on 11/26/2012 9:45:41 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; circlecity

“I am somewhat amused by people who are dead-set on believing that the story of creation is literal...”

Spirited: The proposition that Genesis is not to be taken as a historic account of creation was first proposed by Christian-era Gnostics and other heretics who in common with pagan sages were averse to matter, i.e., their own bodies, their maleness or femaleness and the finiteness of their minds. In “Adversus nationes” (2.37) the Gnostic sage Arnobius complains,

“If souls were of the Lord’s race...They would never come to these terrestrial places (and) inhabit opaque bodies and (be) mixed with humors and blood, in receptacles of excrement, in vases of urine.” (The Pagan Temptation, Thomas Molnar, p. 27)

So regarding your amusement, there is not one thing new, enlightened, or scientific about it. Either it arises from shallow thinking and ignorance puffed by pride or it is an expression of Gnostic contempt.


29 posted on 11/26/2012 10:01:02 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Spirited: And some people-—you for example-—are gullible, shallow thinkers. Read on:

“I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores,” confessed Sir Julian Huxley, former president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin’s colleague Thomas Huxley.

You have a source for this?

30 posted on 11/26/2012 10:09:14 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Don't Believe Everything You Read On The Internet. - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

You have a source for this?

Spirited: Absolutely. But as you are the one in need of “thinking deeper” than a shallow piece of paper it would be good for you to do the work of tracing the quote.


31 posted on 11/26/2012 10:17:01 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

bttt


32 posted on 11/26/2012 10:17:37 AM PST by Texas Songwriter ( i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

“Creationism is also a myth. Earth is older than 6000.”

I only know of 2 creationist that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old in the first place. So to paint with such a broad brush of all creationists is rather ignorant. I bet you don’t even know where that 6,000 figure came from with having to Google it first.


33 posted on 11/26/2012 10:23:39 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“In the world of real science, you can’t just make up some assertion, call it a theory, and expect anyone to believe you.”

Sure you can, liberals do it all the time; global warming, ozone hole, DDT, etc.


34 posted on 11/26/2012 10:25:03 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
I'm to trace an invented quote?

I'm well aware of the practice of attributing quotes to Huxley, Darwin, Voltaire, JK Rowling, and others. And while it can be amusing to work out how a particular pious lie originated, it helps to have a clew to start with.

35 posted on 11/26/2012 10:36:02 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth. -; Peter Abelard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

If you were really interested in the truth you would go to a search engine, type in the appropriate key words and then discover for yourself the accuracy of the quote in question. By your jeering non-interest you expose both your willful ignorance and hatred of truth.


36 posted on 11/26/2012 12:23:24 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Honestly, I am somewhat amused by people who are dead-set on believing that the story of creation is literal, but then go on to deny that every other inaccurate Biblical description of the earth even exists in the Bible.

I had a long "discussion" a while back with one of the more adamant creationists around here about what the "windows of heaven" (aka "floodgates of the heavens") referred to if not actual holes in something solid. She was--she had to be--comfortable with that phrase being a metaphor, offering a half dozen possible interpretations, but insisted that the creation account had to be taken literally. That's when I gave up on expecting any consistency in their arguments.

37 posted on 11/26/2012 12:36:34 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Again total nonsense. The data just isn't there, certainly in the fossel record to support Darwinism. That's why Harvard evolution guru Stephen Gould came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium, to deal with the fact there is no date to support classic Darwinism. The trouble is, there is no data to support puntuated equilibrium either. Science is based on observation and measurement. Evolution has never been observed and the theory can't be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.

Really? Do you have any clue how the scientific method works, or how theories are developed and refined over time? Have you ever examined any evolutionary evidence for yourself, and do you have any of the background knowledge needed to understand the evidence? (And by evidence, I mean any evidence, not just the fossil record. Geology, molecular biology, taxonomy, astronomy... any number of science disciplines will do.)

Yeah, I didn't think so. How about you learn the actual basis of the theories regarding the nature of the physical world before you try to make comments about it?

38 posted on 11/26/2012 4:40:59 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends


Some make more than one donation
Many make none


39 posted on 11/26/2012 4:42:40 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
I don’t need a biology book to understand Jesus is my savior. I also don’t need a scientist to explain how God created the universe.

You're not interested in science, that's fine. You have a right to not learn science if you don't want to. What this thread is about is Bill Nye's comment that religion should not be taught in science classes, and that is what I commented on. I completely agree with Bill Nye on this topic.

40 posted on 11/26/2012 4:46:10 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

No I’m interested in science. I’m saying science doesn’t define God.


41 posted on 11/26/2012 4:48:57 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Not a single one of those references has anything to do with the earth being flat. That God has fixed the earth “firm and unmoveable” in its courses is pretty consistent with modern science. Our revolutions around the sun have been the same for thousands of years. And whether scripture is to be taken literal or allegorically depends entirely on genre and context. I’m always amused by people who have never even read the bible presuming to criticise it.

You didn't actually read the whole essay, did you? It discusses at length the original Judeo-Christian flat earth belief. People aware of the history of science know, for example, that Galileo was found guilty of heresy for describing a heliocentric solar system.

According to Isaiah 40:22, New International Version, not only is the earth a circle (which is a flat object), the heavens are solid, like cloth:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

And according to Job 38:13, New International Version, the earth has edges:
that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

The Bible simply does not describe the universe as we know it to be. Denying that the Bible describes a flat earth, etc., in order to try to make its description of a sudden creation event 6,000 years ago seem more believable is rather dishonest, in my opinion.

BTW, it's very presumptious to assume that scientists don't read the Bible.

42 posted on 11/26/2012 5:21:16 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Sure you can, liberals do it all the time; global warming, ozone hole, DDT, etc.

I'm talking about real science, not legitimate scientific concepts that have been hijacked for political purposes. The earth's climate is not static; it is either warming or cooling all the time. The ozone hole does form every year when the Antarctic is plunged into darkness by the tilt of the earth. And DDT did cause problems. It is not the fault of science that some politicians see in these real phenomena an excuse to try to restrict our freedom.

43 posted on 11/26/2012 5:40:29 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I had a long "discussion" a while back with one of the more adamant creationists around here about what the "windows of heaven" (aka "floodgates of the heavens") referred to if not actual holes in something solid. She was--she had to be--comfortable with that phrase being a metaphor, offering a half dozen possible interpretations, but insisted that the creation account had to be taken literally. That's when I gave up on expecting any consistency in their arguments.

I don't expect a lot of consistency in creationist beliefs. Each creationist appears to have his/her own version of creation, which only partially matches the Bible, and their so-called "refutations" of science are all over the map, as well. Adamant creationists do not, in my experience, function within a logical framework.

It's kind of sad, in a way. I think the insistence on believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible harms the Christian faith. Kids raised in a tradition of rigid literal belief but who are also logical, intelligent, and curious about the natural world can very easily decide to throw away their faith when they see that the physical world doesn't conform to the Bible. I recently read about someone who did just that... became an atheist because his Christian parents taught him that science and faith are incompatible.

44 posted on 11/26/2012 6:00:56 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
No I’m interested in science. I’m saying science doesn’t define God.

Science is a methodology for describing the physical world around us. Science cannot define God.

45 posted on 11/26/2012 6:44:08 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Science is a methodology for describing the physical world around us as we perceive it to be.

Science cannot define God.

Thats what I said.

46 posted on 11/26/2012 6:47:17 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Galileo was prosecuted by the Inquisition because his Copernican description of the universe conflicted with the Aristotelean model which the Catholic church had adapted as a result of the influence of Aquinas whose entire metaphysic was based on Aristotle. Further, your quotes for Isaiah are nothing more than similes and metaphors which are used in all literature including the Bible. Here’s a hint: note the use of the word “like” and then look up the definition of simile. Do you really think the Bible considers people to be literal grasshoppers and the sky to be a cloth tent? Whats remarkable is that in 675 BC Isaiah knew the earth was round (and circular shape does not equate to a “flat object”). The Isaiah passages are the prophet pointing out the transcendence and omnipotence of God. The Job passage is pointing out the Justice and reckoning of God. Jesus compared the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed, a pearl, and many other inanimate objects. While the Bible is not a science book, when the original text does touch on matters of science it is always correct. When it touches on matters of history it is always correct.


47 posted on 11/27/2012 3:52:23 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Bill Nye’s never been all about science, he’s just another Partisan Media Shill.

Smearing Rubio — There are questions only conservative Republicans are asked.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2963289/posts


48 posted on 11/27/2012 3:58:35 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: circlecity

There are plenty of passages in the Bible which reflect the fact that the people of the time it was written believed the earth was flat. It is less clear whether the flat shape is a circle or square (the Isaiah passage refers to a circle, but other passages talk of the “four corners”).

I understand perfectly well what a simile is; it is perfectly clear in that Isaiah passage that the earth is literally described as a circle (*not* as a sphere or ball), while people are being compared to grasshoppers. You can look back at that post (#42) and see that I did not comment that the Bible states that people are grasshoppers.

I would disagree strongly that where the Bible mentions matters of science it is “always correct.” There are many examples of its scientific inaccuracy, beginning with Genesis and the description of God talking and causing animals to pop out of the dirt.

I think it is dangerous to teach kids that the Bible is inerrant in matters of science. Unless you teach them that the Bible descriptions of the world are metaphorical, you’re setting them up to reject *everything* in the Bible when they find it clashes with the real world. That means they reject the promise of redemption and salvation, as well.


49 posted on 11/27/2012 5:19:12 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"You can look back at that post (#42) and see that I did not comment that the Bible states that people are grasshoppers."

But under you position that everything must be taken in its most literal possible sense this is the obvious conclusion. Further, it we go to the Hebrew for the word tranaslated as "circle" ("Hug") it can mean anything circular in nature. As to the earth being flat you still have failed to show anything in scripture that states the world is flat. You take a few metahpors in isolation which don't make that point in the slightest. I could go to any scientific work, including Newton's Principia Mathematic, and do the same thing to make outrageous, and similarly false, conclusions. "Four corners" is a metaphor used thoughout history to descripbe the complete expanse of something. We can also find the phrase "from one end of the earth to the other" and it never is used to mean the planet is a straight line. And it is much easier for me to believe that God created animals the earth than it is to believe that inert elements just magically combined themselves into something as complex as life. Or that complex information just magically creates itself through a vague undefined process called "mutation", something we never see in real world experience.

50 posted on 11/27/2012 7:02:46 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson