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

Skip to comments.

Christians can't afford to oppose evolution [says evangelical-biologist]
Chicago Tribune ^ | 27 November 2005 | Richard Colling

Posted on 11/28/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry

The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.

They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.

They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.

But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?

The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.

Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.

The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.

The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.

In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evofreaks; goddooditamen; heretic; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; mythology; scienceeducation; yecignoranceonparade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450451-491 next last
To: Sensei Ern
Jerry Falwell has done more good than you can imagine.

So you think the " Teletubbies" are gay too?

Falwell may have a big heart, but he could use a smaller mouth and an increased intellect.

351 posted on 11/29/2005 8:18:41 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
The protection from UV radiation afforded by the canopy of the water over the earth was probably one of the reasons ancient man lived approx 10 times longer than modern man.

Also, If the people in the middle ages had followed God's dietary and sanitary laws, the plague would have never spread causing the black death...

Wow, I certainly hope the M.D. isn't for Doctor of Medicine.

352 posted on 11/29/2005 8:29:25 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
So your idea of the conservative movement rises and sets on the theory of evolution?

Back off, jack! No more than yours does on Creationism. The founding of this country was based upon reason. Reason that the Founding Fathers gleaned from the known science of the time, philosophy AND the Bible. However, I don't see that they confounded reason, science and religion in creating the Constitution for the expressed purpose of spreading of religious dogma by the state.

I serve God first.

Well "Bully" for you!

353 posted on 11/29/2005 8:40:03 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Sensei Ern
Is this only an assumption of yours or do you have Scriptural proof?

I agree that Adam did not start "aging" (physical deterioration towards death) until after the fall...But how do you know that Genesis only accounts for Adam's post-fall days and his mentioned age of 930 years is not inclusive of his pre-fall days as well?

Prior to the fall, in Genesis 1:14, the stars, sun, moon and etc. ("lights") were given for the marking of seasons, days and years.

Given this passage, it is obvious that time was being tracked prior to the fall. This would indicate, to me, that Adam's 930 years are inclusive of the pre-fall days...It is his accurate age from the sixth day until his death.

354 posted on 11/29/2005 9:33:02 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: pby

It is a subject of interpretation. If you want to argue on it, I will concede since to me it is of no importance.


355 posted on 11/29/2005 9:39:48 AM PST by Sensei Ern (Now, IB4Z! http://trss.blogspot.com/ "Cowards cut and run. Heroes never do!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"Good, you have studied about metaphysics. I'm happy for you. Do you now realize that it does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural?"

That depends upon which "scientist" you talk to, now doesn't it. LOL

Methodological Naturalism? ~ Alvin Plantinga

The above link is posted on my FR profile page, QUOTE: "...science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. .." Methodological Naturalism ~ Alvin Plantinga

*

MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...

However, the claim is sometimes, and more plausibly, made that evolutionary theory, along with some other scientific theories, functions as a kind of attitudinal metaphysical system [Ruse 1989] Ruse, M: 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications, Routledge.

Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" [ Ruse 1992 ] Ruse, M: 1992. Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press. (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. .. ~ John S. Wilkins (talkorigins)

356 posted on 11/29/2005 10:13:43 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: durasell
"You're not doing yourself any favors on this whole metaphysics thing. Better to quit while you're ahead."

You're embarrassing yourself - in public, too.

357 posted on 11/29/2005 10:16:32 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"As you keep posting, metaphysics isn't about the supernatural. Darwin was talking epistemology. You are showing yourself to be incredibly ignorant of philosophy. Why do you suppose he was talking about Locke??"

I see you're claiming to speak for all "scientists". Stop embarrassing yourself.

358 posted on 11/29/2005 10:21:25 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
1) Your quote from Platinga is evidence of nothing. It does not say in WHAT WAY science is allegedly religious. More importantly, it is not discussing METAPHYSICS. The claim you made is that metaphysics is about the supernatural; this is wrong.

2) "MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...""

So? Darwin was talking about Locke's epistemology, not science. You DO know that epistemology is not science, right? You DO know why he mentioned Locke, don't you?
You have not shown in ANY way that Metaphysics is about the supernatural. Saying it is extra-scientific is NOT the same as being supernatural. Logic is also not scientific; it's an a priori system. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

I'll ask again, why did Darwin mention Locke?
359 posted on 11/29/2005 10:23:47 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Stop embarrassing YOURSELF. The statement you like to trot out from Darwin's notebooks is NOT about the scientific implications of common descent, it's about the epistemological implications. Which is why he spoke of Locke.

You obviously have never read any Locke.
360 posted on 11/29/2005 10:26:10 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"So a quote from before the theory of evolution was even formulated somehow proves something about the theory of evolution. What can we expect from a known liar like you, though? When you don't have evidence for a claim you just make it up, including outright fabrication of quotes."

As long as you insist on embarrassing yourself in public, I'll be glad to help you.

You Darwinist parrots are being made fun of HERE, because you're so predictible - always resorting to the squawk, "liar, liar pants on fire" when you're cornered. LOL

361 posted on 11/29/2005 10:33:56 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
"Well, that leaves the creationist position with absolutely no arguments, then."

You base this on what?

"What exactly is the creationist position then"

There are two more-or-less cores to the creationist position:

(1) Multiple roots to the phylogenic tree (a polyphyletic tree instead of a monophyletic tree)

(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago

A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.

362 posted on 11/29/2005 10:39:36 AM PST by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"..You DO know that epistemology is not science, right?.."

Your knee-jerk, nonsequitur response shows that you will need to re-read my post at #356 a little more slowly and carefully.

363 posted on 11/29/2005 10:55:32 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
" Your knee-jerk, nonsequitur response shows that you will need to re-read my post at #356 a little more slowly and carefully."

I'll take that as a no.

Again; WHY did Darwin mention Locke? Take your time.
364 posted on 11/29/2005 10:57:50 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"I'll take that as a no.Again; WHY did Darwin mention Locke? Take your time."

I'll take that as a continuing effort on you're part to change the subject. That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers. Sorry.

365 posted on 11/29/2005 11:08:05 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
If it were physical death, the God would be a liar, for Adam did not physically die on the day he ate the forbidden fruit.

Doesn't say that he would....


Genesis 2:16-18
(KJV)
 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 
 
 
(NIV) 
   
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." 
 
 
(New Living Translation) 
16 But the LORD God gave him this warning: "You may freely eat any fruit in the garden 17 except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."
 
The TIMING of the eating seems to be a bit fuzzy, but the SURETY of death is clear!

366 posted on 11/29/2005 11:13:59 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: THEUPMAN
When Adam took from the tree his death began.
 
He actually didn't TAKE:

Genesis 3:6 

 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

His sweetie gave it to him...... 
 
 
 
 
 
(And then Liberals* were born!!)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*"It's HER fault!!! SHE gave it to me!"
 
 
 
Genesis 3:12

367 posted on 11/29/2005 11:20:22 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Ever thought that Jesus came to show us how to live?

If this be true, He did a mighty poor job!!!


HE came to die for our sins.

368 posted on 11/29/2005 11:22:03 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

How about androgenous, then?


369 posted on 11/29/2005 11:24:48 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
How about androgenous, then?

How about TV puppets. Why do they rate any coment from Falwell at all?

370 posted on 11/29/2005 11:31:17 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
"I'll take that as a continuing effort on you're part to change the subject."

The subject was the quote you had from Darwin saying, “Origin of man now solved. He who. understands baboon would do more. for metaphysics than Locke”

You then said that evolution was a religion because metaphysics is about the supernatural. I proved this was not so; your OWN definition of metaphysical also did not speak of the supernatural. Here is the full definition from Answers.com

"met·a·phys·ics (mÄ•t'É™-fÄ­z'Ä­ks) pronunciation n. 1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. 2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law. 3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. 4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning." http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics

There is NOTHING there about the supernatural. Again, you have no answer as to why Darwin would bring up Locke.

"That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers."

How does this disqualify you? :)

371 posted on 11/29/2005 11:34:17 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers."

How does this disqualify you? :)

Matchett's thinking has been critical for years ... on life support, actually.

372 posted on 11/29/2005 11:38:44 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")

Is this not a paradox? Indeed it is upon this issue that evolution falls flat for me and that blind adherence to evolution without a serious consideration of how man, a "so-called" evolutionary product, acts contrary to the dictates of nature(...how man in being his "natural" self actually works against nature) is actually a sign of faith...of the affected evolutionist acting as the "true believer"!


373 posted on 11/29/2005 11:43:05 AM PST by mdmathis6 ("It was not for nothing that you were named Ransom" from CS LEWIS' Perelandra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")

Is this not a paradox?

I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature.

IOW: What paradox?

374 posted on 11/29/2005 12:25:37 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820
You write:

(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago

A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.

Your link leads to this statement (among others):

The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me not to conclude that these events must be one and the same.

How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?

No time for flood and recovery, with global migration of plants, animals, and people. No evidence in DNA of descent from only eight individuals.

375 posted on 11/29/2005 12:29:47 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; CarolinaGuitarman
"[my]..thin..g has been critical for years ... on life support, actually."

Poor thin..g. Maybe I can be of HELP

376 posted on 11/29/2005 12:55:55 PM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
How about instead of your juvenile penis jokes you can answer why Darwin mentioned Locke. So far you have shown you haven't a clue.:)
377 posted on 11/29/2005 1:11:10 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"How about instead of your juvenile penis jokes you can answer why..[my red herring stinks]."

I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole.

378 posted on 11/29/2005 1:18:14 PM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

I didn't ask you about your orientation. I asked you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics.


379 posted on 11/29/2005 1:19:45 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?"

(1) How were those dates determined? It is possible that the dating methods are faulty.
(2) It is possible that Creationist timelines are faulty.

Neither of these invalidates the massive evidence for catastrophe throughout the paleozoic and mesozoic.

If you look at the flatness of the layers in the grand canyon, and then think about how there is supposed to be 100 million years of erosion between many of the layers, and then you look at the top of the canyon where there are eroded channels, it makes one think that perhaps there aren't so many years between the layers. Perhaps none at all.

Another interesting site to look at is Berthault's paleohydraulogy site: http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/

He showed that laminated sediments can be re-created in their original order in flowing water, thus showing that many laminations are the result of a physical sorting of particles, not a time sequence.

There are other paleohydraulic markers you can look at, many of which are outlined in Steve Austin's book about the Grand Canyon: http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2005/10/grand-canyon-monument-to-catastrophe.html


380 posted on 11/29/2005 1:33:25 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole.

Oh, look, Matchett-PI lies about someone's statement, then replies to her dishonest misrepresentation of the statement rather than the actual statement. What a shock.
381 posted on 11/29/2005 1:35:42 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You mean she has a history of lying???!!!

lol
382 posted on 11/29/2005 1:36:46 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You mean she has a history of lying???!!!

Saying that Matchett-PI has a history of lying is like saying that the sun has a history of being very hot and that water has a history of being wet.
383 posted on 11/29/2005 1:38:27 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
You owe me a new keyboard and a cup of coffee.

C'mon! The thread was absurd before I got here.

384 posted on 11/29/2005 1:43:40 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"I asked you about your orientation I didn't ask you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics."

That's sick.

385 posted on 11/29/2005 1:44:15 PM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
She knows that she screwed up BIG time with her misdefintion of metaphysics and is too afraid to answer why Darwin mentioned Locke. All she has left is 4th grade viagra jokes.

(Then again, that's all she really had to begin with.)
386 posted on 11/29/2005 1:46:04 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

" That's sick."

Yes, your penis jokes are sick. Now answer why Darwin mentioned Locke. Show us you understand the meaning of the Darwin quote you like to parade before us.


387 posted on 11/29/2005 1:47:27 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

OOo,oooo, I know, I know! Call me! Call me!

He mentioned Locke because Locke was the father of empiricism!


388 posted on 11/29/2005 1:48:48 PM PST by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
BTW, the fossil record is just one small part of the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

Small part? Without it, what case would there be? Darwin's Finches?

389 posted on 11/29/2005 1:56:22 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

""I asked you about your orientation I didn't ask you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics."

Just noted your lie about my quote. I said the opposite of this. For those who want to see how she lied, this is the link to my actual quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529684/posts?page=379#379

Do you think that lying will get you a better seat in Heaven?


390 posted on 11/29/2005 2:05:11 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: john_baldacci_is_a_commie

So, according to Genesis, did plants come before man (Genesis 1:11-13 then Genesis 1:26,29)?

...or did man come before plants (Genesis 2:5-9)?

If you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you must believe that one of these passages are incorrect.

However, if you do not interpret Genesis literally, then you realize that these two passages were written by different authors, but they both make the SAME points: that God was the Creator and the Provider - God gave man dominion over the Earth - and that man was His greatest creation.


391 posted on 11/29/2005 2:11:28 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Matchett-PI will claim that there is nothing dishonest about her quoting of you.


392 posted on 11/29/2005 2:12:13 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Matchett-PI will claim that there is nothing dishonest about her quoting of you."

In her liar's mind, why would there be?
393 posted on 11/29/2005 2:16:53 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

"I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature. "

But you are speculating, not citing scientific evidence...how could evolution have created the concept of a "God", since it is argued scientifically that there is no evidence of one. Dogs don't worship at the altar of the unseen Bone....dolphins arguably as intelligent as man don't seem to worship at the altar of the Great Fish. It seems that the best evidence of man having evolved should have been his "lack" of the concept of guilt and morality!

The apostle Paul believe it or not throws evolutionists a bone when he stated "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" The power of Christianity lies in the power of the resurrection, if science could prove it did not happen then let Christianity be consigned to the dustbins of history....
Yet a certain shroud seems to point towards that extraordinary event, as well as the millions of changed lives who have felt His resurrection in their hearts


394 posted on 11/29/2005 2:39:39 PM PST by mdmathis6 ("It was not for nothing that you were named Ransom" from CS LEWIS' Perelandra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

>The Bible is a very scientifically accurate test.

>Making such absurd claims impugns both science and the Bible.

The Bible was written in the pre-industrial and pre-scientific age, actually even before the Dark Ages. So with all due respect, its about time some ammendments were made. Even the consitution in just 230 years of existence has been ammended so many times..


395 posted on 11/29/2005 3:05:59 PM PST by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.

Some direct quotes from your source:

For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life.

Statisticians, physicists, etc. have been pointing out and explaining constantly that you can't apply statistics retroactively like this, and biologists have been pointing out and explaining constantly that chemical processes are not equivalent to random assembly. Apparently, when a scientist tried to point out these tried and true annoying facts again (which creationists love to ignore), the response of the writer is

Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science.

Better get some better sources than the Institute for Creation Research if you want to get an understanding of how science works - these people clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

396 posted on 11/29/2005 3:18:19 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Genetics.


397 posted on 11/29/2005 4:09:50 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: HarmlessLovableFuzzball
The Bible was written in the pre-industrial and pre-scientific age, actually even before the Dark Ages.

Heck, most of the OT was written before the classical age.

But it doesn't need amendments because it's not about science or technology. It's about the unchanging and timeless truths of faith and morals.

398 posted on 11/29/2005 4:13:23 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature? Is this not a paradox?

I don't see how. Nature is not a person. She doesn't "mean" to do anything, nor does she act in her own interests. Nature is just matter and physical laws, and they produce what they produce.

399 posted on 11/29/2005 4:21:39 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

400


400 posted on 11/29/2005 4:39:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450451-491 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