Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
I am curious, do you think that science will arrive at an explanation? No
Science doesn't really arrive at explanations. It describes things as they are, but it can't explain them. It can tell you with great accuracy how electricity behaves. But it can't explain it. Yes, it can tell you that electricity is electrons that have been stripped off of atoms, yadda yadda. But what is the electron. And what is the force that stripped them from the atom. There is always another question. There are only descriptions of what is being observed, but no explanations of how or why.
Your line of reasoning begs the question, "is it possible for science to prove an intelligent design?" I wouldn't say that it is impossible. However I can't propose a way to do it.
I can tell you with certainty that it is very possible for an individual to satisfy themselves as to the existence of God. I have done so, rather late in life, and after being adamantly opposed to that possibility. Many millions of people have done so.
"Faith" can be misunderstood. If you tell me that you will do something, and I have faith in you, that means that I believe you will do what you say, I trust you.
Faith in God is much the same. It doesn't mean that I just have to believe that He exists, and that that is all there is to it.
Faith in God means that I trust Him. Once I have opened myself up to a relationship with him in that matter, I am able to experience his presence in many tangible and profound ways.
Not worth comment.
This article is a trivialization and misrepresentation of what is actually happening in the scientific community. No reputable scientist is suggesting any such thing. And, to be sure, NOTHING in evolution (improperly labeled as "Darwinism") is incompatible with belief in God.
Science does not plug "data into a theory", never. That is what creationists do.
And that is why science is always incomplete, and creationism is always a perfect and and self-satisfied whole. And woe unto any with the timerity to question it.
It may be obvious to you but it is anything but obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that I see evidence of change and evolution all around me everyday, as such a commonplace part of God's creation that I cannot understand why it denied with such vehemence by some.
The idea that DNA contains information, while seductive and perhaps satisfying to some, is fundamentally a lie.
There is no more information in DNA than there is in a snowflake.
If there is information in DNA, then that "information" ought to be just as useful, or perhaps I should say utilitarian, if carried by some other medium, just like "War and Peace" is "war and Peace" whether printed on paper or stored on a CD ROM. But, it is demonstably false that the amino acid sequences of DNA have any utility expressed in any other form.
Kindly describe for us unenlightened on this thread, just which part of this article is the excrement part that so agitates you?
you can ask Him someday
The first person to call it the "id" pinglist gets treated the same as the first person who calls UPS "ups"
IDping-a-ling!
(Thanks plain talk)
If high level information can only come from an intelligent source, and God must be composed of high level information, what intelligent source created God?
"The buck stops here"
Right. Time to stop thinking.
"In a sense you're right. It's time to stop trying to figure out life on your own, based on man's ideas, and ask the creator what's going on."
And 5 posts before you and one immediately after, to that same post would disagree with you. Your understanding of ID is on par with (your assumption of) the ID's understanding of evolution.
What I wonder, is what do political conservatives do about the cognitive dissonance between believing every word of the scientific community about evolution, and dismissing it (apparantly?) when it comes to global warming.....
Or do these ardent evolutionists also believe that man has caused global warming like the 'society of scientists' preach?
Aren't they the least bit suspicious that so-called scientists also might have a liberal agenda? Where's the critical thought here?
If it were based on true science, it wouldn't have eliminated some of the options before it started looking for the answers.
Whoa! You'd better do some homework there, dr_lew.
The original purpose of evolution was to find a way to explain origins WITHOUT miracles...........to debunk Genesis.
That's not 'reason.' That's agenda.
Very good article but it does not explain antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Just because there might be evaluation does not mean there is an absents of GOD.
Thanks for the ping... great article.
The information you are getting regarding scientific discovery about evolution is coming from the same source that is giving misinformation about global warming.
It is illogical to trust the scientific community on either subject. There is an agenda in both areas.
Did he correct for errors in the Julian calendar? I think the Chinese calendar is more accurate. Ouch bit me tongue.
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.