Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Keep reading and studying... You'll catch on eventually.
And your theories are what? The primordial soup coded and manufactured the just right media for life and animated it on the one planet with life sustaining abilities? Not just once but with multiple species and self sustaning sexual modifications to propagate? You actually believe this? The acceptance of creation is so much more likely and believable by such a large magnitude, it's hardly worth the effort.
Well it's hardly evidence that it's true.
If you keep telling people that something is too complex for them to understand, apparently some of them start to believe it's magic.
No, we're not talking about global warming.
"The more I study this issue the more I come to belief that evolutionists who adhere to classical Darwinism are really kind of quaint. Kind of like flat earthers."
And DNA is just one little part of the whole works. The requirements for dozens of enzymic reactions to start a given RNA/DNA replication, e.g. making new pieces of DNA, proteins and other biochemical structures with a fully functional living cell, is mind boggling. Everything must already be in place, in order for these processes to happen. If things don't work properly within the particular design critera for a given type cell, depends a lot on what kind of animal or plant in some cases, a particular thing would happen or not be a part of the over process, the cell would die, or at best go bad, disease resulting in the animal or plant.
And then spend a few years reading about all the very suspect views on how earth geology does not show a uniform strata as insisted by evolutionists, investigate the problems many scientist claim are wrong with all our major radiometric dating systems, e.g. get a reading of 1.2 million years on one sample and a hundred on another sample of same rock, picked up a few feet away from first etc..
The lists of things that go against evolution is so great it is truly a wonder that anyone would dare preach it as being a fact in at this late date. Of course little has changed from the late 60's to present. I get so tired of hearing the issue is between religion and science. That is a ploy to make it sound like evolution is supported by the total scientific obervations and learning curves in many of our branches of science, and that religion is religion and has not place in science. It has been going on for a long time.
"the Good News" magazine is always an excrement source for balanced scientific articles.
The article isn't about creationism. It is essentially about the defeat of TOE by ID.
Many of the people described in the article are scientists who have become "people who have no trouble tossing the entire body of scientific research into the evolution of life on earth on the trash heap."
I'm staggered that you're staggered.
Flat earthers? You want flat earthers? Try this.
"A fine Biblical scholar," Brady tells the court, "Bishop Usher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the creation. It occurred in the year 4004 BC."
"Well, that's Bishop Usher's opinion" Drummond replies.
"It's not opinion," says Brady, "it's a literal fact which the good Bishop arrived at through careful calculation (which he then describes), in fact,"he continues, "he has determined the actual time of creation as having occurred on the 23rd of October, 4004 BC at 9 am."
I think the argument is that DNA is too complex to have happened by chance or random occurrence.What is the evidence of this? Individual Hydrogen atoms are extremely complex too. So lets say you assume Hydrogen atoms and protons, and quarks are designed as well -- at what point does one then believe that physical laws no longer apply and an Intelligent Designer has control over everything? Wouldn't it make sense for us measly humans to try and figure out how this stuff works instead of just throwing up our hands and giving up?
This is not a redaction of the First Cause argument. It is a simple acknowledgement that human intelligence can find its reflection in matter. That means that a person is doing the looking.
Is there anything in the article that is factually incorrect?
"The more I study this issue the more I come to belief that evolutionists who adhere to classical Darwinism are really kind of quaint. Kind of like flat earthers."
I see your point. It is though they still believe the earth is at the center of the universe. When in reality they have placed man at its center.
I think you meant for your post to be directed to DouglasKC in post #12
Sure physical laws exist. Sure you can try to figure out how these things work...go for it. But I'm sure you'll understand a lot more when you acknowledge and credit the creator.
Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. Does God have a beginning?
You are correct in that science cannot abide such a lame explanation as "God just made it that way".
But if he DID just make it that way, it wouldn't really matter that it isn't a satisfying scientific explanation.
Creation is by its very nature an extra-scientific event. But it doesn't claim to be anything else. Evolution on the other hand makes the scientific claim, and therefore must be measured on that basis.
There are those who argue for "scientific creationism", but they don't mean that the act of creation is scientific (which really confuses the issue). They mean that the evidence of history which is discovered through observation is not inconsistant with whatever view of creation they are peddling.
But the detective work of divining history through observation is not the same "science" as the "scientific theory" of evolution. Which in fact is a theory with widespread evidence,observable and repeatable. It's just that the "scientific theory of evolution" describes a natural process, not an historical event. Historical events are not scientific theories.
If we could distinguish between history and science, and teach stuff in the proper context, I imagine most "creationists" would crawl back into their spiritual worlds and leave the rest of you alone. They have a point -- no matter how well you can 'explain' observations by the evolutionary model, and no matter if you can find fossils which fit a historical hypothesis that is consistant with an evolutionary model, you simply cannot prove the manner in which we reached our current state of affairs.
Part of the problem is that those who wanted to be free from religion co-opted the science of evolution to use it as a hammer to smash the pillars of religion. The "God is Dead" crowd made a religion out of the science of Evolution, and it was inevitable that those who held to other doctrine would fight back. Science simply was caught in the crossfire.
The acceptance of creation is so much more likely and believable by such a large magnitude, it's hardly worth the effort.Absolutely creation is much more believable. All you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears and claim you don't want to learn about the world around you. That's the easy way out. If no one had ever questioned the world around them and just accepted "That's just the way it is", don't you think the world would be a pretty boring place?
O please. Not "inherit the wind" again.
I don't know.
I guess we'll find out for sure when it appears in peer reviewed scientific journals & the MSM (haha).
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.