Actually, Intelligent Design does adequately explain such things. The Sun was made and put into place by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.
But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.
Evolutionism is the answer to the fornicator. If your will to fornicate is strong enough, evolutionism and all its glory is yours.
Darwinism is not without a stable metaphysics. For science abhors a metphysical vaccuum. If one finds that science is done in a culture for a few generations, a culture that disclaims a metaphysics, one then can assume that it is the metaphysics that is denied or ignored, yet there is a metaphysics.
The metaphysics of Darwinism is denial, is stopping short of deeper truths, is in replacing "why?" with "what?" and "how?". But why is there being at all? Darwinism denies that as important, claiming "it is what it is, it is how it is." Darwinism denies G-d. Darwinism denies an active G-d. Darwinism is dumb and blind to the transcendent "Why?".
This is in fact, in the long term, an unstable metaphysics. A saddle-point stability, sure it has, a temporary stability. But it cannot withstand, over time, the calling of the "Why?".
I think the better question is what are the Christians afraid of?
Silly question.
>>But from common sense and experience, when, ever, has an explosion created order? Explosions destroy.
>Stone ignorant. Just stone ignorant.
Indeed. Anone who thinks that explosions do nothing but destroy and create chaos has obviously never heard of the use of explosives in forming structures (see: http://www.people.ku.edu/~aerotoad/Explosive_Forming.htm). Nor has said ignoramous ever heard of the fact that high velocity impacts - such as with meterorites - for nice, ordered, circular craters.
Hell, H-bombs form nicely ordered helium.
No it isn't. You made a direct statement about a "closed system" as fact. I'm interested what you are referring to as a closed system.
Now what is it?
Thanks for that!
The same thing all super-naturalists are afraid of.
Being exposed as just one more temporary cult established to control the masses though enforced ignorance.
I agree and thats why they have been so oppossed to Science of any kind for almost as long as they have existed. Unfotunatly there seem to be more luddites appearing out of the woodwork daily.
Buzz off. It is a silly question. I asked the poster to provide one closed system that evolves to ascending levels of intellect or function. The definition of a closed system is the standard, Tom who acts like brat.
Wow, welcome to my world. It's tough being a Catholic in the South sometimes. Most aren't of the opinion that Catholics aren't Christians but the few that do believe that...yikes. I got confronted by a street preacher and he wanted to convert me from the RCC. I'm proud to say I had a better knowledge of the Bible than he did and he "ran out" of things to say because I had proved him wrong on so many accounts.
Even though evolution seems to be a far from perfect theory, it's still the most likely (though only within the guise of theistic evolution is it plausible).
No - because the religion of Scientism is already being taught in science/biology classes and they don't want any competition.
"For the nontheist, evolution is the only game in town; it is an essential part of any reasonably complete nontheistic way of thinking; hence the devotion to it, the suggestions that it shouldn't be discussed in public, and the venom, the theological odium with which dissent is greeted." ...
"..I take the evidence for an old earth to be strong and the warrant for the view that the Lord teaches that the earth is young to be relatively weak. .. ...how can Christian intellectuals-scientists, philosophers, historians, literary and art critics, Christian thinkers of every sort.... best serve the Christian community... One thing our experts can do for us is help us avoid rejecting evolution for stupid reasons. The early literature of Creation -Science, so called, is littered with arguments of that eminently rejectable sort.
"We shouldn't reject contemporary science unless we have to and we shouldn't reject it for the wrong reasons. It is good thing for our scientists to point out some of these wrong reasons."
"..I can properly correct my view as to what reason teaches by appealing to my understanding of Scripture; and I can properly correct my understanding of Scripture by appealing to the teachings of reason.
"It is of the first importance, however, that we correctly identify the relevant teachings of reason.
"Here I want to turn directly to the present problem, the apparent disparity between what Scripture and science teach us about the origin and development of life." ~ Alvin Plantinga -University of Notre Dame. Read complete commentary
"Could it be the return to teaching of a flat Earth, a Table of elements containing only earth, air, fire and water? Could it be a return to teaching that all illness is caused by possession by evil spirits – or the four humors as an acceptable “scientific approach” to medicine?"
Now you're sounding quite frantic and irrational [like this guy here], but I understand - Darwinism / materialism is the "only game in town" left to those who deliberately reject what they already know
The religious worldview of Darwinists like Dawkins, Spieth, Ruse, Ayala, Gould, et.al., is inherently irrational.
Given the view they hold that they are mere accidents of the evolutionary process, they can't even be 100% sure that their thoughts are valid - yet, in their cognitive dissonance, they make "just so" statements.
Gould, for instance, said: "If you replayed evolution on this planet, the chances of getting any species as smart as humans smart enough to reflect on itself are "extremely small." .. "we are, whatever our glories and accomplishments, a momentary cosmic accident that would never arise again if the tree of life could be replanted from seed and regrown under similar conditions." To insist otherwise, to see evolution as a natural progression toward intelligent forms of life, is to indulge a "delusion" grounded in "human arrogance" and desperate "hope."
Right thinking (small "o" orthodox) Christians begin with the warranted (because it's rational) presupposition that God is. He has spoken; He has created the universe; He has spoken it into existence. ... any other proposition is irrational. ...Gould's Materialism gives us a theory which explains everything else in the whole universe, but which makes it impossible to believe that our thinking is valid. That’s because an accident cannot think of itself in any objective sense.
Consider C.S. Lewis’s words: “In order to think, we must claim for our reasoning a validity which is not credible if our own thought is merely a function of our brain, and our brains are a by-product of irrational, physical processes.” ....[the] materialist, naturalist ..say[s] there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. How can they know what they are saying is true? They are making their claim with a brain that supposedly results from a chance collision of atoms that came out of the primordial soup 8 billion years ago. .."
Ok, then please explain in 100 words or less where the oxygen and the accelerants for the big bang came from. I am not a creationists but I have a hard time with the big bang theory. Please, let's hear your version and how the materials formed from nothing. The universe was nothing, a big empty and then, somehow, material gathered and oxygen formed and, boom, the suns and planets just jumped out and fell into place and you call this guy stupid.
I won't buzz off. I will continue to pester you because you obviously don't know what you are talking about, at least thermodynamically speaking.
You were obviously referring to a specific closed system when you posited your question, otherwise your question makes no sense at all, and now you are embarassed to say what it is. I wonder why?
From your initial statement, it is clear you are misunderstanding the theory of the "big bang". Look up what it acutually means and you'll see that in the context of the theory, you statement makes no sense at all. This isn't meant as a criticism, just that you have been led to believe something that isn't true.
I repeat, when you act like a damn fly, I tell you to buzz off. So buzz off. You're a little burrowing insect to attempt to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head, even. Stick to your own species, Tom the buzz-buzz.
Spiders. Especially those big hairy ones that run around the bathroom very fast.
I an NOT a christian, I am NOT a creationists and you, sir, prove my argument and of others on here, that the so called scientists of FR do not put forth valid arguments but merely make fun and obfuscate with accusations of ignorance and lack of knowlege.
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.