Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Both have a foundation in faith, not reason. That's something the Darwinists never admitted to.
Here's the gist in layman's terms; scientists have fruit fly A, a female.
They breed fruit flies B and C from that single female.
They seperate fruit flies B and C. Let's say that Fruit FLy B has a slight mutation.
The generations from fruit flies B and C eventually evolved to the point that they were unable to interbreed.
In other words, the ancestors of fruit fly B and C couldn't make babies even though they both came from fruit fly A. The generations birthed from Fruit Fly A branched off into two seperate species.
That is evolution plain and simple.
As historian Paul Johnson has written, the history of the 20th Century (dominated by the rise and fall of facism and communism) was a record of what happens when man and society reject the notion of God.
Isn't that close to multiculturalism?
No...
Can't we say for instance that being a practicing Presbyterian is better than being a Pol Pot follower? A devout Buddhist better than being a Nazi. A productive agnostic better than being a serial killer? A stumble down drunk better than a terrorist suicide bomber?
I'm not saying all belief systems are equal. I'm saying that I believe mine is at least as moral and valid as any out there. I have my belief system and morals that I have reasons for believing in. I'm willing to discuss and even change my beliefs, but not when I'm being condescended to by someone who is convinced they have the monopoly on truth.
Ultimately this is a claim of all religions. Follow these rule to be better and more moral. If you didn't believe that why would you be a believer and follower?
Sure. But I don't believe that religion is necessary to have morals. I believe I am leading a moral life without any religion. Some religions believe that it is possible to be moral and not doomed to damnation even if you aren't a member of their religion. Others don't. I have a problem with any religious that would consider me less moral purely because of my religous beliefs or lack thereof.
or when anyone gives me the "I'm right, you're wrong" line.
Are you objecting to them saying it or believing it?
Good question. I'm objecting to those who assert it dogmatically. Of course everyone believes they are right, and I expect people to be able to defend their positions. I have a problem with people who will say words to the effect of, "You don't believe what I believe, therefore, ipso facto, you are wrong and I am right."
Hi RA! I realize that there are people who claim to be atheists who are very fine moral upstanding folk.
On the other hand, I submit as evidence the folks who bring us MTV, VH1 and the politically correct favorites, the homosexual activists. I shouldn't have been so surprised but I found that they had a sex club set up in my kids brand new high school from the day it opened 3 years ago.
The agenda is the usual "sexual experimentation for the kids" and "don't condemn homosexuality until you've tried it."
I also submit for evidence "post-Christian" Western Europe. While they celebrate their "liberation" from backward religion, they've embraced sex with animals, sex with kids, nudity in public entertainment and advertising, (best Yul Brynner voice) etc., etc., etc.
At the same time they've neglected to remember to reproduce. Maybe the Eastern Europeans will colonize their countries, but the Muslims could win control through their ruthlessness.
I never encounter anyone like this in my daily business. There must be something wrong with me.
Two different species of fruitflies. But one never sees the emergence of, say, a bird or a mammal from the offspring of either Fruitfly B or C.
"I am amazed how much atheism is growing around the world.. "
Be of good cheer.
At least you should be cheered up a bit if you get a copy of this book.
(By the way, the author's Oxford office is pretty close to Richard Dawkin's)
The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
by Alister Mcgrath
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Atheism-Disbelief-Modern-World/dp/0385500610/sr=1-2/qid=1166468979/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-0208284-0061234?ie=UTF8&s=books
Both have a foundation in faith, not reason. That's something the Darwinists never admitted to.
My original comment was a dumb thing to say, and not true. The science types I've known are very open to reason, it's just that creationists don't offer any. I was trying to get creationists to see themselves in the mirror, and I failed. That would be an impossible task.
What creationists refuse to recognize is that it takes zero faith to accept evolution. The evidence is overwelming. Instead they get hung up on the original creation of life, which by definition was *not* evolution, and about which science doesn't know much about.
That's the biggest difference between science and faith. Science will admit what it does not know, while the faithful know everything.
I've gone on too long already. I'm sure your mind closed up at the top somewhere.
I encounter them everyday here at FR...
One has never seen an atom split, but Hiroshima was laid waist.
But the emergence of a new species IS EXACTLY what evolution is. So if you admit that two new species of fruit flies evolved from one another you are acknowledging evolution.
Of course it would take millions of years for a new GENUS to emerge. But these experiments along with the massive amount of fossil and genetic data makes the case for the theory of evolution.
I ask, what is your explanation for the vast variety of living organisms on earth? Let me hear your "theory".
Nonsense. If the evidence was overwhelming, the debate would have been over long ago.
No one disputes micro-evolution -- variations within species. The dispute is over macro-evolution, where a fruit fly becomes, through small changes over time, a human being, or at least something entirely different than a fruit fly.. Sounds ridiculous, but that IS EXACTLY what evolution teaches.
Dawkins has his beliefs, I have mine.
God spoke, and it was. If you're looking for the scientific, naturalist explanation for the mechanism, it doesn't exist. Such are the limits of science. Darwinism is the best explanation for the diversity of life, having taken God out of the equation. But many of us are not convinced that it is necessary to take God out of the equation, and that certainly the Darwinists haven't given a compelling reason to take God out. I respect science, but I accept the more humble perspective that science hasn't explained everything, and may never explain everything.
The debate is essentially over, as far as the scientific community is concerned.
The presence of fringe elements persists long after the 'debate' is over and the rest of the world has moved on. I am sure you could find more than a few people willing to 'debate' the merits of ley-lines, dowsing, psychic surgery and Atlantis.
People who are quick to take offense maybe ought to try to understand that the "offender" in this case is trying to help them. They are under no coercion to accept that help. But a Christian is under an obligation to offer it:
“So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me.Perhaps we Christians could manage to find a way to "help" that doesn't set people off into such a frumious tizzy....“If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die; and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
“But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your soul.” -- Ezekiel 33: 7-9
In any case, one's personal actions speak louder than words here....
Thanks so much for writing, metmom!
Sure it would .. it would mean a non Evolution species creation mechanism exists I.E. two paths to "species" .. that in no claims Evolution done not happen but it does mean Evolution can not be the only explanation of every "species"
It would also mean non Evolution species creation must happen before any Evolution can happen... so Evolution can not claim to be origin species but only modifier of original specie... it's the different of being the inventor of the "wheel" and been the modifier of the wheel to it many forms
I'm not arguing if Evolution is or isn't but the logical ramification of saying "The appearance of the very first living cell is outside of the scope of the Theory of Evolution, plain and simple."…. That a loads statement that takes a sledge hammer to some peoples foundational premise of how think work if they think about it
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.