Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Phony Theory, False Conflict
Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last
To: TheCrusader

[Devout Christians cannot be Darwinists, and vice versa.]


I know many devout Christians (who have an absolute faith in and a relationship with the God of the Bible) who are also Darwinists.

I can only assume you mean that only a person who is a devout Christian according to your own personal interpretation cannot be a Darwinist.


101 posted on 11/18/2005 7:52:00 AM PST by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Follow the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
"Then again, the famous evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer put it thus..."

You just can't make this stuff up. How long before he starts widely appearing on creationist websites as a mainstream evolutionist? "See! Noted evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer ADMITS that cannibalism is a logical consequence of evolution!"
102 posted on 11/18/2005 7:53:35 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Theo
According to Genesis 1:11-15, for example, vegetation was created before the stars. That's weird.

Yeah, that would be pretty weird, if was intended to be taken as a literal chronological fact. (Hint: allegory & imagery!!) Even weirder would be a God that created us but meticulously set up genetic, morphological, biogeographical and fossil evidence to trick us into drawing the inevitable conclusion of evolution.

There are obviously mutations and variety among species, but this is not evidence of a growth of genetic complexity.

Untrue.

103 posted on 11/18/2005 7:53:49 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: raj bhatia

This thread, like creatures suffering from inbreeding, has grown sterile.


104 posted on 11/18/2005 7:56:23 AM PST by starbase (One singular sensation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo

I think you are misinterpreting Scripture. God says Adam will die the moment he eats from the tree, but after eating, Adam "lives," in a physical sense, but his work becomes toil (Gen 3:17). And yes, Adam then returns to the ground when he dies, separated from God. That doesn't mean literal death never happened before. It means Adam has chosen the fleshy over the spiritual, the earthly over the Godly -- and if he wants to live by the earth, then he will die by the earth, without God's presence in his life.


105 posted on 11/18/2005 7:59:12 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Well, is the answer that you are fallible and your interpretation of Scripture just MIGHT need retooling? Or are we starting from the assumption that you are infallible and your interpretation of Scripture must be correct no matter what anyone proves to the contrary?


106 posted on 11/18/2005 8:03:43 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Theo

There was a very large post that went through the harmonization of Genesis with Evolution, that I cannot recall the details.

Just one one of the many examples is that most people assume that life started here on earth and/or that the first "plants" were green plants --- neither necessarily true at all.(Some hypothezise the first plants were probably dependant on HEAT, not light, for growth (witness such life near the Marianas Trench at the bottom of the ocean. Similarly, there is good evidence that there may be non-planet-based clouds of organic material floating in the Galaxy, ripe for simple life --- and a good way to have plants before Sun.)

On a much more concrete level, there is greater and greater harmonization of the later parts of Genesis with the evolutionary theory -- for example, one of the big problems many have with evolution is the necessity for sin to enter by "one man." Well, evolutionary theory has CONFIRMED that there was, in fact, at least one common man and one common woman ancestor of all living humans (called "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve").

Other little nagging problems are working themselves out -- Genesis has birds before various land creatures -- not typical school of thought for evolution. Well, per evolutionary study, it turns out the closest living relative of Dinosaurs ARE BIRDS. Substitute the word "dinosaur" in place of birds in Genesis, and things begin to click along nicely.

There will be a time when this all works out and will be as obviously harmonious with the Bible as Copernicus' theory (which was equally heretical in its time).


107 posted on 11/18/2005 8:04:56 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

www.biblegateway.com


108 posted on 11/18/2005 8:05:46 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
You know I also heard that if you kiss a frog, you might be able to turn it into a prince. That's pretty close to punctuated equilibrium.

Wow... Someone both ignorant and unfunny.

109 posted on 11/18/2005 8:13:05 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: doc30
See post #55 above for definitions of terms,particularly "law" and "theory" as used in a scientific manner.

You might brush up on some basic science as well.

110 posted on 11/18/2005 8:30:14 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
Have IQs dropped suddenly???

I love that line! LOL! :-)

111 posted on 11/18/2005 8:32:46 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Oh this is great stuff! (I wasn't aware that Jeffrey Dahmer was on the forefront of evolutionary biology research.)

ROFL!

112 posted on 11/18/2005 8:39:42 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

This proliferation of ignorance, self-righteous, anti-science fools is going to reduce FR to a meaningless internet clowntown.


113 posted on 11/18/2005 8:42:17 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: wigswest; flashbunny; P-Marlowe; Mazeman; BackInBlack; doc30; Coyoteman
Please, tell! :)

I know I have posted this before, but thought here would be a good place again since there seems to be lots of new folks on the thread and some slight misunderstandings:

Let me post my own example of gravity:

A little history here:

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”

F=Gm1m2/r2

Where:

F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)

(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)

Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.

A few of the problems are:

It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.

Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.

A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.

From an NSF abstract:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Here is another nice page of what a theory is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations."

For Laws:

"A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law. A similar relationship exists between Maxwell's equations and the theory of quantum electrodynamics; there are several such cases. This suggests the (unanswered) question of whether there are any ultimately true physical laws, or whether they are all just cases where our sensory and rational apparatus have generated mathematically simple approximations, valid within the range of normal human experience, to unobtainable true formulas."

114 posted on 11/18/2005 8:47:33 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

You just strectched my brain. I knew, of course, that the "God ofthe gaps" notion was wrong, but I had never articulated why.

Thanks


115 posted on 11/18/2005 8:54:30 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
You know what else einstein said? It's one of my favorite quotes:

It's one of mine as well. :-)

However, ummm... wasn't Einstein, it was Newton.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." from Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke in a letter during the year 1675.

116 posted on 11/18/2005 8:54:36 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Amen to that!


117 posted on 11/18/2005 8:55:58 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Any theories that cast doubt upon a strict interpretation of the bible's version of creation are labeled as heresy.

Nothing new there my friend. All thru history.

118 posted on 11/18/2005 8:59:44 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

The Bible says that one man brought sin and death into this world; Evolution says that death brought man into the world. In evolution, Adam would have developed from the deaths of millenia of dead ancestors. It creates a real problem for those who want to say that God used evolution to create Adam and Eve!


119 posted on 11/18/2005 9:00:05 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mazeman

I haven't got that far yet.

:O)

P


120 posted on 11/18/2005 9:03:26 AM PST by papasmurf (I CAN tell the future, just give me a few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack
God says Adam will die the moment he eats from the tree

"The moment"? Where does Scripture say that? Nowhere does it say that Adam's death would *immediately* follow Adam's sin. Scripture says that if Adam sins, he will surely die. And he did. See Romans 6:23 and James 1:15 for more detail.

121 posted on 11/18/2005 9:03:54 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

"This proliferation of ignorance, self-righteous, anti-science fools is going to reduce FR to a meaningless internet clowntown."

I have two theories:

1. The anti-science crowd are actually Democrats pretending to be Republicans to make us look stupid, thereby turning thinking people away from the Republican Party. (It's working.)

2. The anti-science crowd is actually agents of the Devil pretending to be Christians to make Christians look stupid, thereby turning thinking people away from Christianity. (It's working.)


122 posted on 11/18/2005 9:06:50 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

Google "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve."


123 posted on 11/18/2005 9:08:12 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack
Or are we starting from the assumption that you are infallible and your interpretation of Scripture must be correct no matter what anyone proves to the contrary?

That's a strange thing to say. Of course I'm fallible, daily in need of a Savior. Does that mean all my points are moot?

124 posted on 11/18/2005 9:08:27 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
This is a baldfaced lie. MOST evolutionists (In the USA at any rate) are Christians.

Remember creationist lie #423: anyone who accepts evolution is an atheist. By that reasoning, there are no Christians who accept evolution, even when they say that they do.

IOW: No True Scotsman Fallacy
125 posted on 11/18/2005 9:09:37 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Nice Straw Man there, Dimensio.

No, people can have misunderstandings of creation and still be saved. It's ultimately not about "correct doctrine," it's about Who you know.


126 posted on 11/18/2005 9:13:02 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
But some, when they see a gap in a theory, want to fill in that gap by quickly saying "IT WAS GOD!" instead of offering up one or scientifically based theories that may hold up or may be proven false.

It's worse than that. Many here don't even look for real "gaps". They use their personal incredulity without even studying the underlying science, or rely upon bogus claims such as arguments involving the second law of thermodynamics. They don't insert God into gaps that they find, they assume from the start that all of the science is wrong and that their God is the right answer, then refuse to do any research for fear of finding out how weak their objections are.
127 posted on 11/18/2005 9:14:29 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

"Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud."

I agree that Intelligent Design is a scientific fraud. It is also a theological fraud. No more so a xcientific fraud, however, than "Evolution" in its pure, unadulterated form that claims it as absolute scientific fact.


128 posted on 11/18/2005 9:14:59 AM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mazeman
You don't say whether these repeated tests need to have proven anything.

What would you expect to be proven? Theories in science are never proven.

Regarding evolution, they certainly haven't proven the creation of any new species.

You are incorrect here.

So in order to go from hypothesis to theory, you need a wide acceptance of scientists, not actual proof.

Nothing in science is proven. Theories are either found to be consistent with all observations or falsified through contradictory observations.

So there's a political element?

Not as such. More of a consensus based upon actual testing.
129 posted on 11/18/2005 9:18:12 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: wigswest
Evolution is a fact. If you isolate two dogs on an island, after a period of time they won't resemble the original dogs. There will be adaption and modification; however, I don't think you should expect to find they evolved into a cat (obviously higher in the evolutionary ladder) or another species. Evolution, in my humble opinion based on my a priori belief in God and supported by creation physicists and scientists, not adequate to explain how single cells organisms could have evolved into my adorable grandson. Viruses that acquire the capability to infect humans are still viruses. As an adaptation, is it beneficial to kill off your host?
130 posted on 11/18/2005 9:22:34 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.

Not the "LAW" of evolution.


This is a common misunderstanding of scientific terminology. Laws are no more "proven" than theories. Theories do not become laws. Laws are generalizations about observations from which future predictions of similar observations can be made. Theories are a formal attempt to explain the cause of observations. The "law" of gravity is a mathematical formula that expresses gravitational force as the gravitational constant of the universe multiplied by the product of the masses of the two attracting objects divided by the square of the distance between their respective centers of graviy. The theory of gravity -- also called relativity theory -- attempts to explain what causes that force to occur. It should be noted that the "law" of gravity is not only "unproven" but actually inadequate in relativistic scales and even across extremely long distances within the same relativistic frame (because the equation assumes instantaneous force when it is really constrained by lightspeed).
131 posted on 11/18/2005 9:25:49 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I admit I only read a part of the referenced link, but I thought it humorous when they were trying to show speciation by referencing blue gills in Wisconsin. As far as I know, the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish.

There may be better arguments at the site, but this one hit my funny bone.
132 posted on 11/18/2005 9:26:16 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Mazeman
Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.

Theories and laws are two different kinds of statements in science. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not graduated theories.
133 posted on 11/18/2005 9:26:29 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
As far as I know, the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish.

Are you under the mistaken impression that "fish" is a single species?
134 posted on 11/18/2005 9:28:49 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Nice Straw Man there, Dimensio.

Actually, it's an observation derived from the misstatements of many creationists around here. Would you like me to provide you with direct references?
135 posted on 11/18/2005 9:30:26 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Theo

"No, people can have misunderstandings of creation and still be saved. It's ultimately not about "correct doctrine," it's about Who you know."

All true. But Dimensio is correct that YEC repeatedly baldly state one cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution, that I (a sincere Christian) am a "Diest" "Satanist" "Doomed to Hell" "worship Darwin" (all actual accusations) or various other flavor of heretic because I do not agree with how they interpret Genesis.


136 posted on 11/18/2005 9:30:37 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Mazeman

"Regarding evolution, they certainly haven't proven the creation of any new species."

There was an example posted yesterday, actually.

Search for "lizard" in the title.


137 posted on 11/18/2005 9:32:28 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
I admit I only read a part of the referenced link, but I thought it humorous when they were trying to show speciation by referencing blue gills in Wisconsin. As far as I know, the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish.

Yup, and humans and chimps are both mammals. You do know the difference between "species," "phylum" and "order", don't you?

138 posted on 11/18/2005 9:32:36 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
There was an example posted yesterday, actually.

Search for "lizard" in the title.


But...but they're still lizards!

That scraping noise you hear is the creationist moving the goalposts.
139 posted on 11/18/2005 9:33:40 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
I wonder why we all don't sit around and wonder what kind of animal is going to come out of our cat when it gives birth. How come we don't see totally new animals being born?...But I've never seen a cat give birth to a new non-cat creature.

Did my last post in our previous discussion help clarify this for you, or do you still think this is how the ToE says things work?

140 posted on 11/18/2005 9:34:38 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Indeed, but this is the monosaur . . . going from a 3ft s-based creature with legs/paddels to a 30-ft long sea-going monster.


141 posted on 11/18/2005 9:35:59 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Well I'm aware of the terms, but admit I'm probably not as smart as you! I thought the purpose of the site was in response to the question someone had posed about clear evidence for transitional forms, wasn't it?
142 posted on 11/18/2005 9:41:53 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
I thought the purpose of the site was in response to the question someone had posed about clear evidence for transitional forms, wasn't it?

No, I provided the link in response to a statement that speciation has never been "proven".
143 posted on 11/18/2005 9:47:47 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
I thought the purpose of the site was in response to the question someone had posed about clear evidence for transitional forms, wasn't it?

How about a fish with feet, then? Would that do?

144 posted on 11/18/2005 9:49:33 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Ooops! Sorry, my bad.
I would agree that there are good examples of speciation. I would however say that there are only a handful of hotly debated examples of transitional forms.
I'm surprised the site wouldn't lead with its strongest arguments rather than bluegills. I'll have to go back and read the entire article sometime!


145 posted on 11/18/2005 9:56:45 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

Or a lizard with fins!

http://www.unmuseum.org/monosaur.jpg

(The thread on this guy's transitional ancestor; a smallish shall-sea lizard dug up in DALLAS that looks a bit like a Kimodo dragon was posted here yesterday.)


146 posted on 11/18/2005 9:59:45 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Ouch! I hope none of my posts have suggested that one cannot believe in evolution and still be saved. If so, I ask forgiveness.


147 posted on 11/18/2005 10:05:15 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

"It creates a real problem for those who want to say that God used evolution to create Adam and Eve!"

Indeed it does: for your interpretation of Scripture. Clearly, then -- since evolution is about as widely accepted among scientists as anything -- your interpretation is most likely be wrong.

It always boggles my mind that some Christians can readily accept some stories as symbols but other stories must be taken literally.

When Scripture says Jesus is sitting at God's right hand, must that be literally interpreted too? Must we accept that God is a physical entity in the clouds with two arms and has Jesus physically sitting next to him for all eternity?


148 posted on 11/18/2005 10:27:43 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Theo

You should read Scripture before quoting it. Here's the second half of Genesis 2:17, in various translations:

King James - "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Revised Standard - "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

New American - "the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

I was initially looking at New American, but the other two -- the two most widely accepted versions -- clearly say he'll die that very day.


149 posted on 11/18/2005 10:33:01 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Theo

"Of course I'm fallible, daily in need of a Savior. Does that mean all my points are moot?"

Of course not. It means that when facts contradict your interpretation of something, it is your interpretation that should change, not the facts.


150 posted on 11/18/2005 10:33:54 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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