Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Adults Flunk Basic Science
Science Daily ^ | 3/13/2009 | ScienceDaily

Posted on 03/19/2009 6:27:05 PM PDT by freedumb2003

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: freedumb2003

““know” is a pretty strong word. Are you so old as to have witnessed this? If not, you might want to rethink your position.”

No, of course, I refer to the biblical record. Mankind and all mammals were made the 6th day. Consequently we inhabited this planet together, at least for a time.


51 posted on 03/19/2009 9:59:01 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>No, of course, I refer to the biblical record. Mankind and all mammals were made the 6th day. Consequently we inhabited this planet together, at least for a time.<<

Just checking here — you believe the Universe is apx 6-7 thousand years old, per Genesis (I), Numbers, etc.?

I will hold off on the questions of how cold-blooded Dinosaurs could have cohabited with Mammals and yet left such different fossil signatures until I understand your perspective.


52 posted on 03/19/2009 10:05:26 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jukeman
” That begs the question: “in what respect?

I am pretty sure "begging the question" doesn't mean what you think it does. The issue at hand may RAISE a question, but, unless it provides its own answer within the question, it probably does not "beg" the question.

Forensics: It isn't just for Quincy.

53 posted on 03/19/2009 10:08:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Yes, I believe the Universe is apx 6-7000 years old.

Cold blooded reptiles coexist with warm blooded mammals today. I don’t see why reptiles and mammals can’t live on the same planet.


54 posted on 03/19/2009 10:25:26 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>Yes, I believe the Universe is apx 6-7000 years old.<<

Interesting. Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the red shift? Just looking for closure.

>>Cold blooded reptiles coexist with warm blooded mammals today. I don’t see why reptiles and mammals can’t live on the same planet.<<

So the fact that there have never been found Homo Sapien and, for example, Tyrannosaurus Rex bones within the same strata is just a chance non-occurrence? If, as you suggest, Humans and Dinosaurs existed together we should find contemporary remains, right?


55 posted on 03/19/2009 10:31:33 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

In re: red shift, I believe that God created things in mature states. For instance, if Adam had cut down a tree the first few days, there would have been rings. Even though the tree had been standing there “full grown.”

Think about Jesus turning the water into wine in Galilee.

How do we turn water into wine? We pour it near a grapevine, the water wicks up the stem, goes into the grapes, they ripen, we harvest, we crush, we filter, we store for years or what have you (pardon me if I leave out a step or two, I have never made wine). At the end we have a delicious product that is the fruit of perhaps many years’ work.

Jesus did it instantaneously. But if you have put a drop of His wine on a microscope slide, it probably would have looked just like a nice wine made the traditional way.

Normally, light travels at a certain speed. But God isn’t under any compulsion to do things normally.

As for no human fossils being found next to dinosaur fossils, if you say so, I’ll take you at your word. I have mentioned the Paluxy River Bed in previous posts. But, I have been informed that the human fossil footprints next to the dino tracks there are suspect in some way. I don’t know.

But I ask you, because I don’t know the answer, what types of fossils ARE found near dino fossils? Is there a large variety, or just a few things? Is the mere absence of human fossils next to dino fossils proof that men never lived on this earth at the same time as they?


56 posted on 03/19/2009 10:57:19 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>In re: red shift, I believe that God created things in mature states. For instance, if Adam had cut down a tree the first few days, there would have been rings. Even though the tree had been standing there “full grown.”<<

So the billions of miles observed from the red shift predate the beginning of the Universe?

>>Think about Jesus turning the water into wine in Galilee.

How do we turn water into wine? We pour it near a grapevine, the water wicks up the stem, goes into the grapes, they ripen, we harvest, we crush, we filter, we store for years or what have you (pardon me if I leave out a step or two, I have never made wine). At the end we have a delicious product that is the fruit of perhaps many years’ work.

Jesus did it instantaneously. But if you have put a drop of His wine on a microscope slide, it probably would have looked just like a nice wine made the traditional way.
<<

So God created fossils and strata miraculously for some reason only He can understand? He created an entire fake physically consistent history spanning billions of years? To what end was this done?

Yes, there have been miracles. But they tend to be individual events and not broad brush.

>>Normally, light travels at a certain speed. But God isn’t under any compulsion to do things normally.<<

Certainly. I ask again, to what end would God create a consistent physical Universe that can be measured and evaluated, cross-checked and consistency checked?

And do you also think that God just makes physics work on His whim? Chemical reactions depend on His beneficence?

Why would God deceive us so?

>>As for no human fossils being found next to dinosaur fossils, if you say so, I’ll take you at your word. I have mentioned the Paluxy River Bed in previous posts. But, I have been informed that the human fossil footprints next to the dino tracks there are suspect in some way. I don’t know.<<

Yes, you don’t.

>>But I ask you, because I don’t know the answer, what types of fossils ARE found near dino fossils? Is there a large variety, or just a few things? Is the mere absence of human fossils next to dino fossils proof that men never lived on this earth at the same time as they?<<

Yes, it is proof of that.


57 posted on 03/19/2009 11:42:48 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
# Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.*

The water coverage is also weasely. After all, Greenland and Antartica are both almost covered with water, though it often is ignored in these answers. Solid water, but water none the less.

Also, ALL water is "fresh"; just most of it is contaminated with disolved pollutants, most notably NaCl...but that is not part of the water, and can as easily be filtered or otherwise removed as some of the crud routinely removed from "fresh water supplies" before distribution.

58 posted on 03/20/2009 12:04:59 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (The mob got President Barabbas; America got shafted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Betty.

Mary Ann.

Bailey.

Not even up for debate.

(especially the Bailey issue)

59 posted on 03/20/2009 12:08:05 AM PDT by SIDENET (President Obama's teleprompter has issued a stern warning to corporate executives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

As to the strata and so forth, I don’t think God made the earth this way in order to confuse us. I think the model of catastrophism is the best model - that the worldwide flood was responsible for a lot of the strata. This occurred after creation, of course. I don’t believe that God put dinosaur fossils several feet under Eden, just to confuse us. “For God is not the author of confusion. . .” 1Co 14:33

No, billions of miles observed from red shift don’t predate the beginning of the Universe. When God created the stars, he created them “with age,” like the mature trees. The light was visible at the time He created them. It didn’t have to travel billions of years first, while God waited. God doesn’t have to wait.

He created light, you know.

He created Adam a mature man. He did not start him as an ovum, get him fertilized and etc., the whole 20 years or what have you until maturity. He was a full grown man on the day he was created. Eve was a full grown woman. After that, though, His design of reproduction began, and we got Cain and Abel and so on through history. That is what is normal to us. But God is not constricted to what is normal.

“to what end would God create a consistent physical Universe that can be measured and evaluated, cross-checked and consistency checked?”

For His glory. God created a stable, checkable, explorable world. It reveals His incredible ability. Think of one thing. Think of the human eye. What a piece of work. How many mutations, all positive towards its current end, would need to occur to get that eyeball to its current state? Millions. But you would believe that, rather than believe a loving and sovereign God created it? I find the intelligent design of a great Creator to be a far smaller ‘leap of faith!’

One can be a successful and learned scientist and still believe God created this world and all that is in it in six days. Scientific exploration, then, reveals to us the amazing design and ingenuity of God, rather than chance mutations over billions of years. “The spacious heavens declare the glory of our God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto neight reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:2)

Physics and chemical reactions were designed by Him. I see no inconsistency between physical and chemical processes and six day creation. My son has a BS in Physics (UCLA) and is a six day creationist. He sees no contradiction, and uses his degree in his work on a daily basis in medical research.

If the absence of human fossils next to dino fossils proves that humans and dinos didn’t co exist, than the absence of snail fossils next to dino fossils proves that snails and dinos didn’t coexist, etc. There are an awful lot of species on this planet. I don’t think all of them have to lie fossilized next to dinos to prove that they existed at the same time. I would be interested to see, if it were available, a list of all the known species fossilized right near fossilized dino bones.

I would say that fossilized humans next to fossilized dinos would be scientific proof of their coexistence, however.


60 posted on 03/20/2009 12:08:30 AM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

>>Betty.

Mary Ann.

Bailey.

Not even up for debate.

(especially the Bailey issue)<<

I thought that was universal — but my older brother went Wilma, Ginger and Jennifer down the line.

Go figger!

:)


61 posted on 03/20/2009 12:11:49 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
My brother is a Ginger guy, too.

I guess some people just gotta be different.

62 posted on 03/20/2009 12:21:23 AM PDT by SIDENET (President Obama's teleprompter has issued a stern warning to corporate executives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>As to the strata and so forth, I don’t think God made the earth this way in order to confuse us. I think the model of catastrophism is the best model - that the worldwide flood was responsible for a lot of the strata. This occurred after creation, of course. I don’t believe that God put dinosaur fossils several feet under Eden, just to confuse us. “For God is not the author of confusion. . .” 1Co 14:33<<

But there is no proof of worldwide flood. To posit that one occurred but that God covered the proof of such a calamity undermines your thesis.

>>No, billions of miles observed from red shift don’t predate the beginning of the Universe. When God created the stars, he created them “with age,” like the mature trees. The light was visible at the time He created them. It didn’t have to travel billions of years first, while God waited. God doesn’t have to wait.<<

You posit God the Trickster. The light doesn’t have to travel that distance in the timeframe, bit if it doesn’t then it means God has broken His own rules and is deceiving His children.

>>He created light, you know.<<

And He gave it immutable properties that are either a) consistent or b) arbitrary. Should it be the latter, then physics is meaningless.

>>He created Adam a mature man. He did not start him as an ovum, get him fertilized and etc., the whole 20 years or what have you until maturity. He was a full grown man on the day he was created. Eve was a full grown woman. After that, though, His design of reproduction began, and we got Cain and Abel and so on through history. That is what is normal to us. But God is not constricted to what is normal.<<

So you hand wave away the billions of fossils that point to the evolutionary process that created Man? Again, you posit God The Trickster.

The fact that God can do anything doesn’t mean He does everything.

>>“to what end would God create a consistent physical Universe that can be measured and evaluated, cross-checked and consistency checked?”

For His glory. God created a stable, checkable, explorable world. It reveals His incredible ability. Think of one thing. Think of the human eye. What a piece of work. How many mutations, all positive towards its current end, would need to occur to get that eyeball to its current state? Millions. But you would believe that, rather than believe a loving and sovereign God created it? I find the intelligent design of a great Creator to be a far smaller ‘leap of faith!’<<

I think that a God who created a fantastic Universe which runs by consistent rules that can, over time and effort, be discerned and harnessed by Man is truly the evidence of His awesomeness. To reduce God’s creation to something that laypeople can understand is to make God quite small, indeed.

>>One can be a successful and learned scientist and still believe God created this world and all that is in it in six days. Scientific exploration, then, reveals to us the amazing design and ingenuity of God, rather than chance mutations over billions of years. “The spacious heavens declare the glory of our God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto neight reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:2)<<

100% agreement here. It isn’t chance that created us. Evolution is a stochastic process — hardly chance.

>>Physics and chemical reactions were designed by Him. I see no inconsistency between physical and chemical processes and six day creation. My son has a BS in Physics (UCLA) and is a six day creationist. He sees no contradiction, and uses his degree in his work on a daily basis in medical research.<<

I suggest that your son cannot work in modern pharmecology if he cannot understand evolutionary processes. And Physics rarely crosses to medicine.

>>If the absence of human fossils next to dino fossils proves that humans and dinos didn’t co exist, than the absence of snail fossils next to dino fossils proves that snails and dinos didn’t coexist, etc. There are an awful lot of species on this planet. I don’t think all of them have to lie fossilized next to dinos to prove that they existed at the same time. I would be interested to see, if it were available, a list of all the known species fossilized right near fossilized dino bones.
<<
There are none.

>>I would say that fossilized humans next to fossilized dinos would be scientific proof of their coexistence, however.<<

There are none, thus Fred and Dino never co-existed.


63 posted on 03/20/2009 12:34:18 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET
Dawn Wells -- cute as a bug's ear:


64 posted on 03/20/2009 12:37:26 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You are right in what you say, but what this institute is doing is still indoctrination.


65 posted on 03/20/2009 4:29:10 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun
And how many know how long it takes our Solar System to revolve around the Milky Way Galaxy?

Anyone?

Bueller???


66 posted on 03/20/2009 5:16:21 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

This doesn’t surprise me one bit. When I taught Physical Science our 9th graders coming in did not know how to measure with a ruler! They didn’t know the difference between inches and centimeters! And, altho we spent the first 6 weeks working on it (in every way we could think of) many STILL made mistakes when measuring (would put inches when asked to measure with cm’s!) Americans are bad at science because they could care less about it. A large number are mentally lazy.


67 posted on 03/20/2009 5:59:00 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradomomba

That’s a sad fact. We can complain about schools all we want (and they certainly deserve much of it) but you simply cannot people who don’t want to learn.


68 posted on 03/20/2009 5:59:49 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
Trick question. The Sun and the planets and the stars are revolve around Earth.

Actually, they revolve around Obama...

69 posted on 03/20/2009 6:01:53 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/c-m-kornbluth/marching-morons.htm


70 posted on 03/20/2009 6:07:52 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I always had a problem with some students when we covered evolution. They would say they didn’t believe in it and weren’t going to learn it. I told them that if they refused to learn it they would never be able to make a smart argument against it. Otherwise they would say stupid things like, “If man came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys!?”


71 posted on 03/20/2009 6:10:56 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
scientific theory To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. It has to be internally consistent, based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena and demonstrate problem solving.

http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/help/glossary/(namefilter)/s

72 posted on 03/20/2009 6:11:39 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

The hint applies. You already got your morsel from me, now chew it over.


73 posted on 03/20/2009 6:12:11 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I think you should say it’s evidence, not proof.


74 posted on 03/20/2009 6:16:46 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.

All of them Democrats.

75 posted on 03/20/2009 6:22:22 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"# Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun."

What???

What???

What???

It's over, kids.

76 posted on 03/20/2009 6:39:00 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

>>scientific theory To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. It has to be internally consistent, based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena and demonstrate problem solving.

Pretty good summary. The implications are vast.

The important thing is to realize that there is not a hierarchy that goes from Guess to Hypothesis to Theory as with the lay use of the term “theory.” A Scientific Theory is the highest level attainable in Science. “It is just a theory” makes no sense when applied to a Scientific Theory.


77 posted on 03/20/2009 8:22:25 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

>>I think you should say it’s evidence, not proof.

Perhaps. But from a falsifiable perspective, the lack of evidence of man and dino being contemporaries is pretty strong proof.


78 posted on 03/20/2009 8:24:45 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
And do you also think that God just makes physics work on His whim?

We don't really know what makes physics "work." What is clear is that there are different sets of rules for different circumstances; i.e., very small things are governed by different rules than are things like us, than are things that are traveling at very high speeds.

Answering why is always difficult, and in some cases, it may be impossible. But it's certainly clear that there isn't one standard set of rules. It could very well be that this is simply one more thing that we don't understand.

And note, while I don't believe in young earth, I don't think you can dismiss such notions out of hand.

79 posted on 03/20/2009 8:34:44 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

>> We don’t really know what makes physics “work.” What is clear is that there are different sets of rules for different circumstances; i.e., very small things are governed by different rules than are things like us, than are things that are traveling at very high speeds.<<

True — but in trying to find those fundamentals, science needs to rely on a consistent and physical Universe

>>Answering why is always difficult, and in some cases, it may be impossible. But it’s certainly clear that there isn’t one standard set of rules. It could very well be that this is simply one more thing that we don’t understand.<<

Science operates from the assumption there is one set of rules (else nothing would be discoverable). It also admits we don’t know them all and may never know them all.

>>And note, while I don’t believe in young earth, I don’t think you can dismiss such notions out of hand.<<

I think it must be dismissed out of hand. Even a cursory glance at the evidence tells one that the Universe and its tiny inhabitant, the Earth, are billions of years old.


80 posted on 03/20/2009 8:53:04 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I understand that (and most people don’t—guess we biology teachers are not doing a good job passing that on!)


81 posted on 03/20/2009 8:57:56 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

It’s strong evidence. It’s hard to prove the theory (dinosaurs lived at the same time as early humans) or to disprove it, in fact. At least that is how we taught it. People like to toss around the word proof, but I think it muddies the waters here. You can disagree, and it’s semantics.


82 posted on 03/20/2009 9:01:33 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
You can disagree, and it’s semantics.

You can't really prove a negative so I will agree with you.

83 posted on 03/20/2009 9:26:28 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I’m not sure we can actually prove much of anything. Perhaps we are all in the Matrix! ;)


84 posted on 03/20/2009 9:27:25 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
True — but in trying to find those fundamentals, science needs to rely on a consistent and physical Universe . . . Science operates from the assumption there is one set of rules

I think that's generally true for nature around us, but those constants break down--for instance, we know that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to sub-atomic particles. Everything else does, but subatomic particles don't. Why? Don't know. But they don't. So you can't rely on Newton's laws to explain those things. Same is also true for space. We know enough to know that Space doesn't follow our rules.

85 posted on 03/20/2009 9:57:13 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Your public schools at work. Of course, I often wonder, this being such a big country, would other countries of similar size fair much better, in terms of percentages?


86 posted on 03/20/2009 10:02:53 AM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
I think that's generally true for nature around us, but those constants break down--for instance, we know that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to sub-atomic particles. Everything else does, but subatomic particles don't. Why? Don't know. But they don't. So you can't rely on Newton's laws to explain those things. Same is also true for space. We know enough to know that Space doesn't follow our rules.

That's the point: when we find the rules don't apply, we try to ascertain what the newly discovered rules are. Things like quantum physics are tools to help discern what the true underlying rules are. Just as Einsteinian rules supplanted Newtonian, new rules are being discovered that poke holes in some aspects of Einstein's.

Space may not follow our rules but it follows some rules.

87 posted on 03/20/2009 10:25:39 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Sure, sure, I agree—but the point is that it’s not all one set of rules. There are very clearly different rules for different sets of circumstances, and this may be yet another example of a “different” set of rules that we can’t comprehend.

I suspect that we know something like .0001% of all there is to know about the universe and how it works and one day we’ll all be very surprised to learn how things really work.


88 posted on 03/20/2009 10:43:27 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
Sure, sure, I agree—but the point is that it’s not all one set of rules. There are very clearly different rules for different sets of circumstances, and this may be yet another example of a “different” set of rules that we can’t comprehend.

I think we are saying the same thing. The different rules for different circumstances ARE the rules.

I suspect that we know something like .0001% of all there is to know about the universe and how it works and one day we’ll all be very surprised to learn how things really work.

If we are that far a long I would be very surprised. Toss in about 6 or 7 zeros to the right of the decimal place ;)

89 posted on 03/20/2009 10:46:20 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“The fact that God can do anything doesn’t mean He does everything.”

The fact is, God said what he did. You can either believe Him or not.


90 posted on 03/20/2009 12:26:45 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“I suggest that your son cannot work in modern pharmecology if he cannot understand evolutionary processes. And Physics rarely crosses to medicine.”

He works on a research team which develops computer models and trials for nano delivered medicine. As best I understand it. His bosses seem to be very happy with him.

You know, the majority of people in this country and in this world believe that this universe was directly created by a divine being. I am not speaking from a bizarre little sliver of humanity. Presumably, most of us are able to do our jobs without embracing evolutionary theory.


91 posted on 03/20/2009 12:32:33 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“But there is no proof of worldwide flood. To posit that one occurred but that God covered the proof of such a calamity undermines your thesis.”

Wow. Oh yes there is. Besides the Bible, and the lore of many ancient peoples, there are the strata and the grand canyon and oil and coal and a wealth of physical evidence that supports a worldwide flood.

I know you have already sort of made up your mind, but a quick search of “catastrophism” (wouldn’t take you but five minutes) could at least let you know what the other side is thinking, even if you don’t agree with it.


92 posted on 03/20/2009 12:34:51 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“There are none.”

Are you saying, do I understand you correctly, that all dinosaur fossils are found alone, i.e., there are no other fossils nearby or in the same strata?


93 posted on 03/20/2009 12:35:47 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“You posit God the Trickster.”

No, God is clear about His attributes, including the fact that he is omniscient, is not bound by time, and is not bound by our physical laws. He raises the dead, for one thing. He appeared to Moses in a burning bush, but the bush was not burnt. Etc.

You posit God the Liar. Why would He lie to His people?


94 posted on 03/20/2009 12:37:51 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>Wow. Oh yes there is. Besides the Bible, and the lore of many ancient peoples, there are the strata and the grand canyon and oil and coal and a wealth of physical evidence that supports a worldwide flood.<<

I am sorry, that is flat out not true. There is no physical evidence of a worldwide flood within the timespan of Human existence. Most of the Earth was underwater at one time or another but that was billions of years ago.

Here is a pretty good link that explains in detail: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/new_no_flood_evidence.htm


95 posted on 03/20/2009 1:25:04 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>Are you saying, do I understand you correctly, that all dinosaur fossils are found alone, i.e., there are no other fossils nearby or in the same strata?<<

No, I am saying that no modern human fossils have been found with the same time markers as dinosaurs. They are millions of years removed.


96 posted on 03/20/2009 1:27:25 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

>>No, God is clear about His attributes, including the fact that he is omniscient, is not bound by time, and is not bound by our physical laws. He raises the dead, for one thing. He appeared to Moses in a burning bush, but the bush was not burnt. Etc.<<

I believe I covered miracles upthread. Whether God used Evolution as His method to create us or zapped it all into existence it makes no difference to His Powers. But why would He then create billions of interrelated and correlated pieces of evidence to something that never happened?

>>You posit God the Liar. Why would He lie to His people?<<

He never lied to his children. He spoke in the only terms they could understand and made it clear He created this Earth for the benefit of His Children.


97 posted on 03/20/2009 1:32:55 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Well, I guess you and I agree that He never lied. You are assuming he wrote Genesis as some sort of easily digested allegorical tale, because men at that time couldn’t have understood it. I think men at the time of creation were just as intelligent as we are now, and could have accepted evolution, if God told them that’s what he did.

It could have read like:

“In the beginning, God made matter. He began to create life using the energy of lightning and heat and pressure. Small creatures, smaller than your eye can see, began to appear. Slowly over millions of year, He caused these creatures to adapt and grow and change. Leaving some as they were, He caused others to grow into small plants, then animals and birds. Some of they changed over millions of years into animals. Finally, God caused the apes to evolve in mankind. He named the first man Adam”. . . etc.

That’s just as understandable as Genesis 1 is now.


98 posted on 03/20/2009 4:06:47 PM PDT by Marie2 (I don't know what that bird told you, but I'M Brian Fellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Marie2
“know” is a pretty strong word. Are you so old as to have witnessed this? If not, you might want to rethink your position.

*Know* is a pretty strong word to use to apply to a scientific THEORY.

How do you KNOW they didn't? Are you so old as to have witnessed this? If not, you might want to rethink your position.

99 posted on 01/01/2010 12:43:12 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Marie2; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Marie2: But I ask you, because I don’t know the answer, what types of fossils ARE found near dino fossils? Is there a large variety, or just a few things? Is the mere absence of human fossils next to dino fossils proof that men never lived on this earth at the same time as they?

fd: Yes, it is proof of that.

Bzzztt.... Wrong.....

If you find them together, you can safely conclude that they existed together. Not finding them together means nothing especially with as spotty as the fossil record is and with fossilization so poorly understood.

Buy a clue.... Not everything that ever lived left a fossil, therefore, in the field, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Looks like you flunk basic science.

100 posted on 01/01/2010 12:53:22 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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