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

Skip to comments.

How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana’s creationists
io9 ^ | January 15, 2013 | George Dvorsky

Posted on 01/16/2013 4:41:13 PM PST by EveningStar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-267 last
To: marron
Thank you so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dear brother in Christ!

Its important to notice that parts of the process are mechanical, and are predictable, and parts of it have been given independent intellect and will which adds an element of spontaneity to the process. This seems to be by design. Rather than a universe of telephone poles he seems to prefer forests of unique trees whose final shape is not entirely predictable or controlled.

So very true.

And, as you say, He does not need to control every thing to remain in control of everything.

Like you, I look forward to even more of that spontaneity in the next life.

251 posted on 01/22/2013 9:45:22 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Whatever label we put on your examples, none but our Creator God could have accomplished them as observed. IMO, There is no more obvious -- publicly witnessed and documented -- proof of the deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, than His miracles.

To Him be all the praise and glory!!

Amen!

Thank you so much for your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!

252 posted on 01/22/2013 9:52:53 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
I AM is still in control!!

Amen!

And yes, indeed, we are on converging courses!

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

253 posted on 01/22/2013 9:54:55 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; marron; P-Marlowe; YHAOS; MHGinTN; hosepipe; metmom
LOL!! Every time I re-read your #235, it still cracks me up!!

~~~~~~~~~

It was during the Nixonian era that the Alzheimer's that finally took my Dad (a lifelong Democrat) reached the point that we had him professionally evaluated. I was there with him, and the tester did start with name and date -- and then he asked for the name of the current President.

My Dad's response was, "Ummmmm... Harry Truman?"

~~~~~~~~~

Your post caused me to ask myself how I (at 75) would answer that same question...

TXnMA:

"Well -- it sure as heck is NOT that ineligible, illegal alien, phony 1/6th Black, Kenyan muslim Marxist usurper who is squatting in the White Hut, spending MY money, running up debt, taking expensive vacations and golfing while doing his da*ndest to destroy our Constitution and everything that makes this Nation great!!"

So...

Ummmmm... Ronald Reagan?"

~~~~~~~~~

<LOL!!!>

(Praise the Lord that I'm now able to jest about that horrible time in my family's life!)

254 posted on 01/23/2013 5:07:48 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

LOLOL!


255 posted on 01/23/2013 6:23:31 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
DNA of an organism is the genus code of information on how to reproduce another of that genus. Men are now manipulating the code, to produce a new generation which deviates significantly from the genus from which the DNA was lifted for manipulation. Animal husbandry is no longer what these scientists are doing.

BUT, as you pointed out, this is still a far cry from creating since they are manipulating what has already been created ... they haven't reached the level of 'getting their own dirt'.

256 posted on 01/23/2013 6:45:17 AM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

LOL!

Who is the president? The last REAL president was Ronald Reagan.

I can see that going through my mind, so I can see your elderly Pops answering in just that way regarding Harry Truman. His was a cantankerous generation with plenty of sand, as they say, so just such an answer would be right in character.


257 posted on 01/23/2013 8:30:11 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: xzins; betty boop; marron; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; YHAOS; MHGinTN; hosepipe; metmom
"healing any leper insofar as there is the assumption that any missing body parts were restored."

~~~~~~~~

Just ran across an interesting FR post which bears on the subject of healing the lepers:

Man who lost nose to cancer will grow a new one on his arm

Probably would have overlooked it you hadn't piqued my curiosity with your question.

~~~~~~~~~~

For those of us who participate in these discussions in the right spirit, I'm convinced that the Lord uses inputs from all similarly-motivated participants to enrich and grow our own lives and witness -- in ways that we may not even recognize...

Again, Thank you!

And, thank You, Lord, for the blessing of fellowship with these FRiends!

258 posted on 01/23/2013 9:50:07 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
And, thank You, Lord, for the blessing of fellowship with these FRiends!

Amen!

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for the link!

259 posted on 01/23/2013 10:09:25 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

> Men are now manipulating the code, to produce a new generation which deviates significantly from the genus from which the DNA was lifted for manipulation. Animal husbandry is no longer what these scientists are doing.

And if you have any imagination of what could be done by madmen just because they can that should scare the hell out of you. I remember sitting in a meeting many years ago and a high ranking military official who was a member of an ethics committee that was tied to the WH (cannot remember what the specific name of the committee but it start with a J) and he indicated that they had been discussing concerns in regard to ethics if the public were aware of how far advanced they had become in reference to tinkering with DNA; about how they had figured out how to get different species to accept DNA from the other by using a form of a virus; that they now had the capability to develop new life forms. It was pretty alarming stuff and sort of gave me a sick feeling at the time. He said they were considering the ethics of doing experimentation like that and said pig’s DNA had already been tampered with many years before to make them larger by inserting HUMAN DNA into their genetic code. Every time I look at a pork chop now it doesn’t look nearly as appetizing...lol


260 posted on 01/23/2013 11:30:51 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

They may be manipulating code already presetn- species specific code- but are they adding non species specific code into a species? Anyone can manipulate info that is already present, however, it’s a far different thing to introduce information that is not specific to the animal in order to ‘create’ a ‘new species’ Altering info already present is nothign but LOSS of info- gaining non species specific informaiton is another thing altogether- Not sure it’s been doen succesfully- although I think I read soemwhere ocne where spider genes that produce silk were introduced into goats and the milk contained silk- however, I’m not sure such a transfer of information between disimiliar species can happen outside a lab and carefully controleld circumstrances


261 posted on 02/05/2013 10:31:40 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

[[You are quite correct in saying that Christianity and Creationism are not synonymous. Of course not. Creationism is a tenet of Christianity; the most important tenet; That the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of the Universe, and of Mankind. What is your point in asserting something not in dispute? Do you think it somehow salvages your soiled reputation?]]

Those who insert their own words into the bible are infact attemptign to make God’s word Fallible, and their word infallible- They insist they beleive God’s word, and they insist they are ‘Christians’ however, they reject them ost important tenents, because to accept God at His word is to admit evolution can not, and did not happen- so they MUST cause God’s word to becoem fallible, and cause their words to becoem infallible- they are Feabily attempting to make themselves out to be more trustworthy than even God is- These folks, who were NOT there ‘in the beginning’ act as though they were infact there, and desperatetly try to convince everyoen that their word is more true than The One who WAS there i nthe beginning, and who gave His account about what took place. God’s word tells us VERY CLEARLY thgat there was NO sin and death and destruction BEFORE the fall of man- and Yet evolutionists (who falsely claim they are ‘Christians’) INSIST that God ‘got the ball rolling by initiating evolution’ which means that there would HAVE TO BE death, destruction, corruption BEFORE the fall of man, in order for the evolutionary process to somehow manage to overcome biological, physical, mathematical impossibilities trillions of times ‘over billions of years’- which is blatantly contrary to God’s word

Evolution and Christianity are NOT compatible- Either God’s word is infallible3, or man’s is- I’m putting my money on God- Christianity and science are completely compatible, but the hypopthesis of evolution as seen through the highly imaginative glasses of secularism are not compatible- The FACTS are the same for both camps- but the evos go way beyond the facts, and insist that nature was capable of supernatural events- and that nature must have violated it’s own ‘laws’- and that nature was somehow capable of irreducible complexity and of creatign information out of static materials-


262 posted on 02/05/2013 11:10:55 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

[[At first, I thought it was only a “semantic problem.” I.e., the “meaningful” difference between “creation” and “formation.”

But that didn’t satisfy....

Then the thought occurred to me that this entire “dispute” is resolvable in terms of the concept of ex nihilo Creation, which the Holy Scriptures inerrently proclaims and attests.]]

Again- I think it’s pretty clear that the bible talks about ex nihilo, AND also mentiosn the fact that death did not occure before the fall of man- The symantic differences between’creation/formation’ therefore are moot- if no death occured before the fall of man (Summarized ‘If you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die’) then evoltuion could not have happened, and it’s very likely that 6 days means just that- six days- The bible holds enough evidence to present a strogn ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case for special one time creation UNLESS one delves into the word with a scalpal and the itnent of fittign hte word to a preconceived ideology that excludes God from the whole works- We don’t find anythign in God’s word to even begin suggestign htere were several creation events ‘outside of’ the six days, and I beleive it woudl take a seriosu imagination to invent a case for such an idea?

If I mistook your itnentions of your post in 218- I apologize, I just beleive we can stray quite far from God’s true itnentions in His word if we want to soemtimes- especially when the simplest answers seem to be the best msot of the time-


263 posted on 02/05/2013 11:23:59 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Adaption is loss of information, ‘evolution’ i gaining information NOT Specific to that species- The latter is a biological impossibility- the body has several lines of ‘defence’ agaisnt foreign invasions of non species specific information which is precisely WHY unlike KINDS can not breed and make viable offspring- The word KIND throws the evo for a loop- because htere are many KINDS within a species family- There ARE cases where Birds Isolated on islands ADAPTING to a point where they can no longer breed with the same species elsewhere is nothign more than a LOSS of information and NOT the necessary GAIN of information to produce evoltuion proper (macroevolution)- but htey are still the same KIND and will NEVER be another KIND- it’s biologically impossible for them to becoem another KIND and will eventualyl burn themselves out due to inbreeding- Loss of information such as this is NOTHING LIKE macroevolution

Basically I said exactly what you have said- Adaption is loss of information within a KIND


264 posted on 02/05/2013 11:36:41 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
7: That the Truth of reason is not contrary to the Truth of Christian Faith
THE natural dictates of reason must certainly be quite true: it is impossible to think of their being otherwise. Nor again is it permissible to believe that the tenets of faith are false, being so evidently confirmed by God. Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.
. . . . . Saint Thos Aquinas Of God and His Creatures

The FACTS are the same for both camps- but the evos go way beyond the facts

And there, I think, is the nub of it.

I’m not much into Science, so I listen and try to understand what I can. What is clear to me, and to what I find violent objection, is that some science advocates (Darwinian Mullahs and Imams, I call them) use Science to justify sweeping religious conclusions that take Science (Evolution specifically) well beyond the realm justifying their reason for existence. If, in the process of the application of the principles of Alinsky and Goebbels to Evolution, these Darwinian Mullahs and Imams exceed even the simple bounds of Science alone, then this should not be an occasion of stupefaction.

265 posted on 02/06/2013 10:26:59 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

[[I’m not much into Science, so I listen and try to understand what I can.]]

I’m only slightly into science- mild itnerest I guess it could be described as- what I loathe though are scientists who insist that hteir word is infallible while God’s word is fallible- Yet they stand on a far greater amount of faith than We Christians do because they have to put hteir faith in a ‘force’ incapable of intelligent design that somehow ‘created’ intelligently designed, irreducibly complex systems by the trillions-

Science is compatible with Holy Scriptures, and ifnact supports Holy Scripture, but evolution is not science, it is faith in a supernatural ‘force’ that somehow, agaisnt impossible odds at every turn, created irreducibly complex information out of what? Dirty Chemicals? Can’t happen-

I don’t mind scientists havign their viewpoints, (If they want to go to hteir grave believing they are nothign more than descendents of primates- then that’s their problem and they have a rude awakenign coming to them), however, when they becoem Nasty liek Richard Dawkins, and begin claiming assinine things such as ‘morality and belief in God is nothign more than a virus’ and insinuating that thsoe who believe in God are weakminded to begin with which made them susceptible to the ‘delusions’ caused by soem unknown virus- then it gets personal- the hostility of evolutionist scientists towards Christians is uncalled for- and unprofessional- and the hostility of the peer review organizatiosn towards Creationist’s findings and ID’ist’s findings is equally disturbing coming from a body of peopel that claim superior knowledge-

It’s just sad that debates always seem to devolve into heated arguments riddled with nasty remarks like allmen’s, in both the scientific community and in blogs and websites-


266 posted on 02/06/2013 9:20:23 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
when they (our Christian hating antagonists) become Nasty like Richard Dawkins, and begin claiming asinine things such as ‘morality and belief in God is nothing more than a virus’ and insinuating that those who believe in God are weak minded to begin with which made them susceptible to the ‘delusions’ caused by some unknown virus- then it gets personal” (edited for a dysfunctional keyboard)

When “they” get personal, you may be sure that a sincere exchange of ideas and opinions is not the motive behind the insults.

Thanks for the comeback.

267 posted on 02/07/2013 9:42:28 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-267 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