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

Skip to comments.

Creationist Kurt Wise critiques secular science on program
Baptist Press ^ | march 7, 2008 | David Roach

Posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by balch3

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Secular scientists who fear allowing the conclusions of creationism into secular universities have good reason to be afraid because they are accountable to the creator, Kurt Wise, professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on the Albert Mohler Radio Program in February.

“If it’s true that there was a creation, then you realize that means there’s someone in control,” Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminary’s president. “And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means we’re in big trouble. So I think there’s every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.”

Wise appeared on the Feb. 13 show to comment on discussion stirred by recent news articles on evolution in commemoration of what would have been Charles Darwin 198th birthday Feb. 12. A USA Today article pointed out that some secular scientists are upset over the fact that a number of creationists have obtained doctoral degrees from major universities recently.

Wise earned a Ph.D. at Harvard University in paleontology under late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould. Mohler noted that famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins called Wise “the greatest disappointment he knows in modern science” -- a designation Mohler said should be worn with pride.

“I am absolutely thrilled you end up in the center of his target, and that’s why you are on the program today,” Mohler said. “It’s because you have so boldly set out the case. Richard Dawkins can’t imagine anyone who understands modern science in terms of its theory and history and paradigm and model and still believes the words, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’”

It is important for Christians to talk about evolution, Mohler noted, because too often believers have responded inadequately to the challenges of Darwinism.

“For the better part of two centuries the Christian church has been trying to figure out how to respond to the challenge of Darwinian theory and the prevailing evolutionary model,” Mohler said. “I’ll just be very candid to say that in so many cases the church has failed.”

The two greatest errors Christians have made are capitulating to evolution on one hand and rejecting it in an unintelligent way on the other hand, Mohler said.

Wise argued that accepting the Bible’s account of creation makes intellectual sense.

“If you want a correct account of an event, you want an eyewitness,” Wise said. “You want an eyewitness who’s reliable. You want an eyewitness who understands. Who better than God Himself? If He really is the creator, then He has the accurate account. How could a scientist thousands of years later, who wasn’t there, actually have a better account of the origin than God Himself?”

Modern science is limited because it draws conclusions based only on the things scientists can observe and experience, Wise said.

Scientists “cannot deduce anything about a creation,” he said. “They’ve never seen a creation before -- not a creation out of nothing of the universe. Their experience is limited to what they see and hear in the present. With those kinds of limitations, they couldn’t possibly deduce the right thing about the beginning of things.”

Humans cannot separate science and religion because scientists begin their work with assumptions about the world that are “deeply religious,” Wise said, adding, “Science drips with theology. You cannot do science without making theological assumptions.”

Mohler pointed to the writings of prominent evolutionists as evidence that theology and science overlap.

“All you have to do is read the evolutionists,” he said. “They’re always talking about the meaning of life. Richard Dawkins tries to find it in the mystery in the sheer accidental nature of the whole thing. The late Carl Sagan tried to find it in the immensity of what appears to the human eye to be limitless space.... You can’t talk about humanity without talking about the meaning of human life.”

In response to a question from a caller, Mohler and Wise said they believe the earth is relatively young because they trust the Bible’s account of creation as accurate and straightforward.

“At the end of the day, I cannot interpret the straightforward words, sentences and propositions of Genesis 1-11 any differently than Romans 1-11,” Mohler said. “So that’s why I hold to a young earth.”

Wise agreed.

“It seems to be a clear reading of Scripture that God told us that the earth is young,” he said. “And I hold that position for that reason. I also believe that science is such that these (evolutionary theories) are theories of humans. So if it’s a choice between God’s clear Word and humans’ reason, then I’m going to take God’s Word.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: apologetics; darwin; darwinism; evolution; fsmdidit; id; idjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; luddites; thegreatdebate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last
“If it’s true that there was a creation, then you realize that means there’s someone in control,” Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminary’s president. “And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means we’re in big trouble. So I think there’s every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.” -------- Bingo.
1 posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:07 AM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: balch3

Thanks for the post.


2 posted on 03/10/2007 11:18:50 AM PST by uptoolate (If it sounds absurd, 51% chance it was sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"professor of theology and science"
Hmm... As a chemistry PhD, I could teach chemistry, and could probably spice the teachings with a few entertaining alchemy bits and pieces here and there for historic and entertainment purposes, but to teach alchemy I cannot. Ditto for the astronomy/astrology pair. Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both.
3 posted on 03/10/2007 11:44:03 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

this might become amusing.


4 posted on 03/10/2007 11:51:27 AM PST by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

ONE BIG TRUTH BUMP!!


5 posted on 03/10/2007 11:52:49 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

If your holy books contradict well founded observations in science, one of 3 things is true:

1) You misunderstand your holy books.
2) Your holy books are wrong.
3) Both (1) and (2)


6 posted on 03/10/2007 11:54:55 AM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

4) your definition of "well founded observations in science"


7 posted on 03/10/2007 12:07:25 PM PST by brannon (now hold on there, son....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Bingo


8 posted on 03/10/2007 12:11:09 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
voltaires_zit- A mere mortal speaks!!

Dead Darwin, dumb dawkins and all the little darwinettes and dawkinettes VS. God's Word.

God wins - EVERYTIME, ALL THE TIME!!

God created........and there was evening and there was morning, the second day. Not too hard to understand UNLESS you want/need to.
9 posted on 03/10/2007 12:11:23 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

All gods WERE immortal.


10 posted on 03/10/2007 12:14:35 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

> Dead Darwin, dumb dawkins and all the little darwinettes
> and dawkinettes VS. God's Word.

The record of scientists versus the record of those who were sure they understood what God said with respect to the physical universe is clear and unmistakeable.

The religiously clad idiocracy is 0 for many, many 100s.


11 posted on 03/10/2007 12:17:15 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brannon

> 4) your definition of "well founded observations in science"

Some examples that religious folk have had trouble with over the years:

The earth moves.
Germs cause disease.
The earth is quite old.


12 posted on 03/10/2007 12:26:12 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
The earth is quite old.

It just looks old because it's lead a rough life.

13 posted on 03/10/2007 12:30:13 PM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
God created........and there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

...posts the creationist, using his computer, taking his medicine, driving his car.
All the fruits of scientists who (thankfully) didn't share his petrified, stunted imagination and curiosity.

14 posted on 03/10/2007 12:40:33 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

4) Your science is incomplete and/or wrong


15 posted on 03/10/2007 12:47:41 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

I'm a chemist as well, and frankly, I find the whole evolutionist line about "amino acids polymerising (via a condensation reaction) in the early earth's ocean" to be so astounding I wonder if they even think before they speak.


16 posted on 03/10/2007 12:49:37 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
...posts the creationist, using his computer, taking his medicine, driving his car. All the fruits of scientists who (thankfully) didn't share his petrified, stunted imagination and curiosity. You see, it's ignorant, bigoted, and frankly empty-headed talk like that that causes me to have no respect for evolutionists. You realise that the foundations of modern science were lain by "creationists", right? You realise that evolution has virtually no impact on like 90% of our science, even much of the biotechnology fields, eh? Further, there's a good argument to be made that the reason biological sciences lagged behind the physical sciences (being called "the retarded child of the sciences" by Michael Crichton back in the '70s) is because they were hobbled by an overreliance on evolution - mainly because bioscientists tended to force everything through the lens of evolution instead of simply letting the observable, empirical science speak for itself.
17 posted on 03/10/2007 12:58:06 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

> 4) Your science is incomplete and/or wrong

While theoretically possible (as is a pan of water freezing when placed over an open flame), is such a low order of probability that it has never been observed.


18 posted on 03/10/2007 12:59:01 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
They do think. You see, the natural selection process prunes a combinatorial tree at each iteration, and thus probabilistic calculations, as commonly performed, do not apply. The tree is much less fluffy and luxuriant than it could have been imagined otherwise.
19 posted on 03/10/2007 1:02:08 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

I'm sure the guys who believed in the ether thought the same thing,VZ....


20 posted on 03/10/2007 1:04:34 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Great, except that you can't run water-producing condensation reactions in an ocean. Le Chatelier's, and all that.


21 posted on 03/10/2007 1:06:04 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I didn't say scientists were never wrong.

I said, in the case of a conflict between a well established observation and a religious text.

I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right.

It's never, not once, happened.


22 posted on 03/10/2007 1:07:48 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

As if there is no phase boundary with the atmosphere, like on the pebbles and sand on the primeval shores. Besides the thermodynamics, there is the kinetic of hydrolysis, as well.


23 posted on 03/10/2007 1:10:54 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Do you understand the difference between equillibrium and non-equillibrium conditions? The thermodynamics and kinetics involved? Le Chatelier's Principle applies only under equillibrium conditions, but it does not prohibit a condensation reaction in aqueous conditions, nor does it make kinetic predictions.


24 posted on 03/10/2007 1:12:20 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"[T]he sequence of the Creation as written is impossible ... for the water preceded -- as it is written: “And the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water.” -- and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place!

--Rashi (11th century)

25 posted on 03/10/2007 1:15:08 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Darn it, you beat me by less than 2 minutes :)


26 posted on 03/10/2007 1:20:31 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

The spirit [vapors] does hover over the [sur]face of [fire]water, and could be distilled from it. At atmospheric pressure it forms an azeotropic 190-proof mixture. At about 30 mm pressure the azeotrop becomes more spiritual, as it shifts to 199 proof spirit.


27 posted on 03/10/2007 1:24:45 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Do you understand the difference between equillibrium and non-equillibrium conditions? The thermodynamics and kinetics involved? Le Chatelier's Principle applies only under equillibrium conditions, but it does not prohibit a condensation reaction in aqueous conditions, nor does it make kinetic predictions.

The problem for you is that, under the natural (i.e. non-laboratory, and therefore non-controlled) circumstances posited by the "early earth amino acid to proteins" scenario, the system operates under equilibrium conditions. Hence, in this scenario, Le Chatelier's DOES prevent this condensation reaction from occurring. And yes, evolutionists have tried all kinds of arguments - directing clays, thermal vents, etc. - to gett around this, but none have shown any experimental promise. I haven't even addressed the kinetics of the system, for the simple fact that you actually have to have an appreciable reaction before kinetics have any importance. BTW, the Le Chatelier's argument is only one of many empirical arguments that doom the traditional evolutionist theories about the naturalistic formation of life in an early earth scenario. We've not even discussed the effects of hard UV on amino acids (no oxygen = no ozone), or the problems with the racemicity of the product AAs.

28 posted on 03/10/2007 1:47:38 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
I said, in the case of a conflict between a well established observation and a religious text.

Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-established observation". Evolution rests on circumstantial evidences from which it is deduced as an explanation. Neither evolution nor creation are, by their very nature, subject to empirical, verifiable, repeatable experimentation. To the extent that generational variation has occurred, it has been within type, not between type. We've simply no experimental evidence that fish become frogs become lizards.

I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right. It's never, not once, happened.

False, I've seen it happen. Back in the early 1990s, the hard-core, literal 7-day creationists like Duane Gish and Gary Parker were routinely engaged on university campuses across the country to debate with evolutionist professors, usually but not always on the university's staff. The creationists would crush the evolutionists most of the time. It happened here at the university where I got my degree (i.e. empirical observation). It was after several rounds of this that the evolutionists began the "we won't debate them because that will just given them undeserved credibility" line.

29 posted on 03/10/2007 1:56:48 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
"...All the fruits of scientists who (thankfully) didn't share his petrified, stunted imagination and curiosity."

Wrong!

If you look at the recorded scientific discoveries of the last 1000 years you'll find that most of them were made by Christians who believed in God as our creator, and lived in Christian dominated societies.

Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Edison, Einstein...

Just because some of these folks had their detractors within the "Church" does not remove the fact that they were all believers in God as the author of science and creation.

Perhaps you could share with me an equally accomplished list of Atheist scientists produced in Atheist countries and their accomplishments, i.e. some soviet or modern Chinese Atheists who have transformed science with their findings?
30 posted on 03/10/2007 2:00:04 PM PST by ME-262 (Nancy Pelosi is known to the state of CA to render Viagra ineffective causing reproductive harm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
in the case of a conflict between a well established OBSERVATION and a religious text.

As is ' LYING EYES '.

God's Word is HIS LIVNG WORD! The same yesterday, today and forever.
31 posted on 03/10/2007 2:00:58 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

> Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-
> established observation".

The guys in the article at the top of this thread "think" the world is "young" "because God said so".

They're deranged morons.

So are most of their fellow travelers.


32 posted on 03/10/2007 2:03:53 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ME-262

> Edison, Einstein...

Edison thought the notion of a "soul" was fiction and that a personal God was the fevered imagining of an inadequate man.

Einstein was born a Jew, and to the extent that he wasn't an outright atheist believed in Spinoza's nameless, faceless "First Cause". He thought personal gods were ridiculous.


33 posted on 03/10/2007 2:06:17 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place!

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the deep and The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - PREPARATION!
His Spirit hovered over what was to 'become' - Invisible to the natural, first, and then God spoke it into existence.

And God SAID let there be light.....
34 posted on 03/10/2007 2:18:07 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
God created........and there was evening and there was morning, the second day...posts the creationist,

God was here first - He Created it all - It's HIS Words.

But you knew that already - it's your meds clouding out TRUTH!!
35 posted on 03/10/2007 2:22:13 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right.

So if God didn't create the universe, who did?

36 posted on 03/10/2007 2:27:52 PM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mtg

I don't think the idea that God didn't create the universe counts as a well established observation.

That it didn't occur within the last 10-20,000 years and, that there wasn't a recent global flood certainly do, though.


37 posted on 03/10/2007 2:32:14 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
God's Word is infallible - HE IS SUPREME! Always was and always will be..

Where's Darwin hanging out?
38 posted on 03/10/2007 2:32:28 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both."

"Kurt Wise holds a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University, where Stephen Jay Gould was his advisor. Dr. Wise is currently Assistant Professor of Science and director of an origins research program at Bryan College in Dayton Tennessee."

Bryan College (Mission Statement):
The basic purpose of Bryan College is to educate students to become servants of Christ to make a difference in today's world. The College seeks to assist in the personal growth and development of qualified students by providing an education based upon an integrated understanding of the Bible and the liberal arts.

In 2006, Dr Wise has changed school affiliations. He is currently teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary!

Ignoramus in science? PhD from Harvard.

Unbeliever in theology?:Formerly a faculty member at devoutly Christian college. Currently on the faculty at the seminary of one of the most traditionalist Christian groups.

"Thus I strongly suspect that this Kurt Wise is either an unbeliever [re theology] or an ignoramus [re science]. Maybe both."
An allegation born out of ignorance and arrogant suppositions. Yep, GSlob must be an evo.


39 posted on 03/10/2007 2:33:50 PM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Mans' interpretation of God's Word is highly fallible, as has been observed repeatedly.


40 posted on 03/10/2007 2:34:12 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
That it didn't occur within the last 10-20,000 years and, that there wasn't a recent global flood certainly do, though.

It's amazing how you consider your own thoughts and what you observe - higher than The Almighty and what HE SAYS.
41 posted on 03/10/2007 2:37:46 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Mans' interpretation of God's Word

and there was evening and there was morning, the second day. Genesis ONE is not too hard to understand UNLESS you want/need to.

Strange how YOU have NO PROBLEM understanding Darwin/Dawkins!
42 posted on 03/10/2007 2:41:39 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
St. Augustine
On the Literal Meaning of Genesis
(pp. 42-43)


43 posted on 03/10/2007 2:50:13 PM PST by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Robwin
"Kurt Wise holds a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University, where Stephen Jay Gould was his advisor."
My dear, I happen to be a PhD from princeton- so don't I know what kind of people are to be found in Ivy League graduate schools? I have seen them up close. Thus I stand behind my opinion of Kurt Wise being a charlatan.
44 posted on 03/10/2007 3:25:04 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: voltaires_zit

Wise words from St. Augustine...thanks for that...


46 posted on 03/10/2007 3:36:43 PM PST by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
When you use God' Word - then I'll read it. IF St. Augustine did say the below - how dangerous for him. He should know more about what an infidel can hear or understand - it simply means - he didn't NOT study to show himself approved! But, than again, that's not the only thing he didn't do.

it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics

It's more a shame that an infidel can't understand - there was evening and there was morning. Somewhere between that their lying eyes see thousands or millions of years! Basically, you will find whatever pleases you and go to any means NOT to hear or read The Truth. That's the evo ego in play! But, then again, I'm not to caste pearls before swine! You reject God's Word - that your problem - an everlasting one. Are you prepared for tomorrow?
47 posted on 03/10/2007 3:53:06 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ME-262
If you look at the recorded scientific discoveries of the last 1000 years you'll find that most of them were made by Christians who believed in God as our creator, and lived in Christian dominated societies.

I said nothing about Christians in my post, only Creationists. There *is* a difference you know.

48 posted on 03/10/2007 4:53:56 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BioAnalytical Chemistry
As any BSc/MSc/PhD who was privileged at anytime to have studied organic chemistry with Morrison and Boyd, one will soon recall that conditions which give rise to aromatic structures synthetically must not only be well controlled (in the presence of highly purified platinum no less -- find that in the "soup" conveniently somewhere!), but at temperatures which would have destroyed all the alanine and glycine you might have had.

Then how do yeast cells turn non-aromatic compounds like sugars, air and water into aromatic compounds like Guanine? Must be a miracle!!

You really need to review your old biochemistry books...

49 posted on 03/10/2007 5:11:13 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Oh, man, you just opened up a can o' worms with that one! Hope you've got your asbestos suit on, cuz the Fundies don't cotton to no Devil-inspired evolutionist heresies, and they love to burn heretics (in flame wars).

/right-wing Darwinist

50 posted on 03/10/2007 6:01:18 PM PST by FierceDraka (I am NOT a number, I am a FREE MAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 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