You said it much better than I could.
What do computers and televisions have to do with the ToE? Do you believe that computers evolved from televisions because the share some similar characteristics? Sheesh.
Posted on 07/25/2008 6:32:59 AM PDT by Soliton
Resistance from the religious community to embrace evolution, he says, comes from a miscommunication between the language of science and the language of religion.
"Debating whether God or evolution created the universe is like asking, 'Who said this sentence, me or my vocal chords?'" he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at commercialappeal.com ...
The Catholic Church and this Reverend's position are the same. God created evolution as His tool for creating life.
Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. - Genesis 1:3
Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." - Genesis 1:6
Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. - Genesis 1:9
Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. - Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; - Genesis 1:14
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." - Genesis 1:20
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. - Genesis 1:24
Your correction is just right. yes!
God does not use broken tools and he does not work outside of the laws of mathematics and probability. Evolution is outside of those laws.
So you are a Biblical literalist? I am very glad to meet you. (I know we have had exchanges before).
There aren’t very many young earth creationists left.
Are you going to say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?
Soliton, do you have any data? I have collected some on my blog, and while polls on creation/evolution don't often focus on the age of the earth, I am inclined to think otherwise based on the data. I would not be surprised to see the U.S. reach a 50% young-earth position within this generation.
There is some evidence of polarization (that is, fewer people holding the theistic evolution compromise position), but I've seen no evidence of a decline in YEC in the U.S.
ebliever.blogspot.com
PS: Catholics are not in agreement on the subject of origins. There are YEC Catholic organizations and conferences, such as the Kolbe center.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx
In this poll, it is 31% that believe the Bible is literally true.
Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. …Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.
….
Evolution violates the laws of probability and mathematics. Usually when something involves odds any worse than something like one divided by ten to the fiftieth power, mathematicians, assuming the 17-billion year figure for the age of the universe which you read about, assume there hasn’t been time for whatever it is to happen. Evolution involves odds vastly worse than that.
That should read, Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the PSEUDO-scientific theory of evolution...
Try to keep that sort of thing straight if you can.
This dude sounds like a freaking tool.
Only if they are correctly modeling the system. (They are not.)
As an example of modeling conducted with different assumptions, take a look at this online lecture:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices.
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Before religion can be taken seriously by science it must first apologize for all the crap it has done to the rational thinkers up to now.
Wow, you get internet access in your cave?!
Who is the spokesperson for "religion" and who specifically should he apologize to representing "science". You people that personify concepts give me the creeps.
Wow, what a valid point.
Religion, supposedly, is based on a series of beliefs. Incorporated in these beliefs should be that religion throughout history has stood in the way of science, and that acknowledgement would lend religion some small bit of credibility.
But enough of this, I’m distracting you from your voo-doo doll.
And who would you like to acknowledge this? And you people would still find a way to bitch about religion. Would you say that our form of government being guided by Biblical principles has been a good thing or bad thing?
Forgive them for they do not know what they do. They enjoy the fruits of science while they vilify it. They use the creations of science like computers and televisions to do it. for them denying science is like a fish denying the existence of water.
You believe that a Biblical day actually meant "an age" rather than 24 hours then?
You said it much better than I could.
That is usually one of the differences between literalists and inerrantists.
The same scientific method that produced modern things like TVs and Computers is behind the ToE!
I wonder how many of them signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now" petition, implicitily accepting the geologist's claims that those oil deposits really are here, while maintining that modern geological science is all based on lies.
I read a Seventh Day Adventist book one time. It argued that there was no evidence that the Earth was more than 10, 000 years old and claimed that carbon dating was phony because “it had been shown to indicate a living oyster was over a million years old”. Later in the book, they discussed how a piece of would found on Mt. Ararat was proof of the story of Noah because it had been carbon dated to the exact time of the flood!
If they’re right, then we’ve been burying our nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain right on top of a supervolcano that’s been active within the last 6,000 years.
The Scientific method cannot be applied to the ToE.
You'll have to do better than that. I post a few articles every day about scientists applying scientific method to the theory of evolution.
“The fact that they are theories does not make them uncertain, even when various fine details are still under dispute. This is particularly true of the theory of evolution, which is under constant attack from people who are either ignorant of science or, worse, who allow their superstitions to overcome what knowledge they might have.”
-Dr. Isaac Asimov, PhD. Professor of Biochemistry, Johns Hopkins University
Isaac Asimov was a Humanist and a rationalist.[17] He did not oppose religious conviction in others, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs that tried to pass themselves off as genuine science. During his childhood, his father and mother observed Orthodox Jewish traditions, though not as stringently as they had in Petrovichi; they did not, however, force their beliefs upon young Isaac. Thus he grew up without strong religious influences, coming to believe that the Bible represented Hebrew mythology in the same way that the Iliad recorded Greek mythology (for a brief while his father worked in the local synagogue to enjoy the familiar surroundings and "shine as a learned scholar" versed in the sacred writings. This experience had little effect upon Isaac beyond teaching him the Hebrew alphabet). For many years, Asimov called himself an atheist; however, he considered the term somewhat inadequate, as it described what he did not believe rather than what he did. Eventually, he described himself as a "humanist" and considered that term more practical.You don't suppose he had some kind of agenda do you?
In his last autobiography, Asimov wrote, "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." The same memoir states his belief that Hell is "the drooling dream of a sadist" crudely affixed to an all-merciful God; if even human governments were willing to curtail cruel and unusual punishments, wondered Asimov, why would punishment in the afterlife not be restricted to a limited term? Asimov rejected the idea that a human belief or action could merit infinite punishment. If an afterlife of just deserts existed, he claimed, the longest and most severe punishment would be reserved for those who "slandered God by inventing Hell". As his Treasury of Humor and Asimov Laughs Again record, he was willing to tell jokes involving the Judeo-Christian God, Satan, the Garden of Eden, and other religious topics, expressing the viewpoint that a good joke can do more to provoke thought than hours of philosophical discussion.
Asimov became a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party during the New Deal, and thereafter remained a political liberal. He was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War in the 1960s and, in a television interview during the early 1970s, he publicly endorsed George McGovern. He was unhappy about what he considered an "irrationalist" viewpoint taken by many liberal political activists from the late 1960s and onwards. In his autobiography In Joy Still Felt, he recalls meeting the counterculture figure Abbie Hoffman; Asimov's impression was that the 1960s' counterculture heroes had ridden an emotional wave which, in the end, left them stranded in a "no-man's land of the spirit" from which he wondered if they would ever return (this attitude is echoed by The Wave Speech in Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). His defense of civil applications of nuclear power even after the Three Mile Island incident damaged his relations with some of his fellow liberals. In a letter reprinted in Yours, Isaac Asimov, he states that although he would prefer living in "no danger whatsoever" than near a nuclear reactor, he would still prefer a home near a nuclear power plant than in a slum on Love Canal or near "a Union Carbide plant producing methyl isocyanate" (referring to the Bhopal disaster). He issued many appeals for population control, reflecting a perspective articulated by people from Thomas Malthus through Paul R. Ehrlich. Asimov considered himself a feminist even before Women's Liberation became a widespread movement; he joked that he wished women to be free "because I hate it when they charge"[citation needed]. More seriously, he argued that the issue of women's rights was closely connected to that of population control. Furthermore, he believed that homosexuality must be considered a "moral right" on population grounds, as must all consenting adult sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction (Yours, Isaac Asimov).
In the closing years of his life, Asimov blamed the deterioration of the quality of life that he perceived in New York City on the shrinking tax base caused by middle class flight to the suburbs. His last non-fiction book, Our Angry Earth (1991, co-written with his long-time friend science fiction author Frederik Pohl), deals with elements of the environmental crisis such as global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer. [emphasis added]
It is tragic that this preacher is embarrassed by the fact that some elitist scientists ridicule Christians. So much so that he is willing to embrace nonsense to gain respect from them. We can witness vocal cords vibrating. We cannot see macro-evolution occurring. There is no plausible explanation for how creatures survived before they were fully formed. In fact, all attempts that I’ve heard are laughable. Cordially, Bob
Ring Species: Salamanders:
Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
In concept, this can be likened to a spiral-shaped parking garage. A driver notices only a gentle rise as he ascends the spiral, but after making one complete circle, he finds himself an entire floor above where he started.
A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States. In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species scrabbling across the ground. One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so.
Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring.
The evolutionary story that scientists have deciphered begins in the north, where the single form is found. This is probably the ancestral population. As it expanded south, the population became split by the San Joaquin Valley in central California, forming two different groups. In the Sierra Nevada the salamanders evolved their cryptic coloration. Along the coast they gradually became brighter and brighter.
The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed.
By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.
Ring species, says biologist David Wake, who has studied Ensatina for more than 20 years, are a beautiful example of species formation in action. "All of the intermediate steps, normally missing, have been preserved, and that is what makes it so fascinating."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
Ah! Creation "science" at its best.
I wrote “would”!?
“There aren’t very many young earth creationists left.”
Compared to when?
“Are you going to say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?”
I’ll say it. “Evolution” violates the second law of thermodynamics not to mention logic and reason.
So you believe the earth is 10,000 years old and you DARE to pretend you understand the second law of thermodynamics?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I don’t pretend anything. I’ve used it EVERY DAY in the application of REAL science (since you like capital letters) for many years now.
The religion of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with REAL science. Quit pretending it does and pretending that science evolved from evolution.
Does PE stand for “Professional Engineer?”
It does.
Civil Engineering?
No.
Mechanical Engineer. Master of Science specialized in Thermal Sciences. In addition: studies in Archaeology, Anthropology and Forensics.
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.