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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3916&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage ^

Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-392 next last
To: fish hawk
I do enjoy pulling your chain and go on most all these threads about Evolution more for fun than anything else.

So you are just a troll?

101 posted on 03/14/2007 6:10:07 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Do you get headaches from keeping your mind so tightly closed to reality?
102 posted on 03/14/2007 6:14:17 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

LOL! Good one! It just shows the problems of the pioneerng days, when educated clergy were in short supply and lay people picked up a Bible and just went nuts.


103 posted on 03/14/2007 6:15:51 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Hitler was more of a creationist and believed eugenics was simply carrying out God's will on Earth.

No, he was against the book of Genesis... the eugenic breeding programs are evidence of this all in themselves. Der Fuhrer was a Teutonic pagan...

104 posted on 03/14/2007 6:20:00 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
However, many who stump for evolution treat the subject as if it were proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

Evolution is open to scientific debate. And, as in any scientific dscipline, the cutting edge is where the debate is concentrated. The problem are scientifically illeterate creationists who want to question evolution, but can't get the basic science right first. The same can be said of any theory. The theory of gravity, quantum theory, general and special relativity, atomic theory, etc., are all unproven and open for discussion.

105 posted on 03/14/2007 6:20:23 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

More accurately, heHitler warped science and religion to fit his own insanity. But his arguements were based in that twisted religion he synthesized from elements of Christianity and paganism.


106 posted on 03/14/2007 6:22:41 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: doc30
More accurately, heHitler warped science and religion to fit his own insanity. But his arguements were based in that twisted religion he synthesized from elements of Christianity and paganism.

More accurate... yes... thank-you...

The big question is that with all of his hyped superiority, why didn't der Fuhrer ever produce children?

107 posted on 03/14/2007 6:26:15 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Anybody know if they've got a testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis to go with that yet?

Ditto for evolution. What's your falsifiable hypothesis for the theory that you were vomited from muck?

108 posted on 03/14/2007 6:48:32 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: baubau
The ultimate intent of the evolutionists is not the destruction of the myths and fables in the OT, but the destruction of Christianity as a political force and of its culture, heritage, works of art and demographic numbers through illegal and legal immigration and birth rates.

Believers in compassion, charity, brotherhood and love must also understand that these attributes are most possible and most practiced and appreciated in Western monocultural societies, not muticultural ones.

We Christian Eropean-Americans are in a struggle for our heritage, culture, freedom and very existence, and the anti-Christians are our enemies. Evolution is anti-Christian.

Do you happen to shave your head?

The irony, lost on you I'm sure, is that the anti-evolution screed du jour is that those who accept the legitimacy of the theory of evolution are racists. Well, thanks anyway for providing a nice counter-point to that specious argument.

109 posted on 03/14/2007 7:54:18 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The big question is that with all of his hyped superiority, why didn't der Fuhrer ever produce children?

He was a socialist. Therefore it's another do as I say, not as I do excuse?

110 posted on 03/14/2007 8:04:32 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I haven't posted on a creationist thread in eons because they all end up being the same after a while and descend into name calling. There are two logical positions one can take in this debate:

1) The Atheist approach, where evolution is correct because it is the best explanation without invoking a creator.

2) The Theist approach where you believe that the creator set everything up as it is, and we are just learning some of the workings of the creation, and evolution is a part of that.

Unfortunately, on these threads, you often get people in untenable logical positions, largely based on ignorance of science, evidence, peer review, and a host of other things. So, you get people in these positions:

3) Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. Pretty hard to support your position on this one unless all known scientific data is wrong.

4) Evolution is a conspiracy to wipe out Christianity. Why is it never a conspiracy to wipe out Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism, or Islam, or Taoism, or Shintoism? Could it be that not all these religions are incompatible with evolution?

5) Evolution is a religion, and has priests and acolytes. Religion has stifled science at the point of a spear for centuries(witness the dark ages). You can't have it both ways and laud the achievements of science in technology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, but then say on the other hand that all of that is based on a false belief, and therefore that airplanes can't possibly fly because evolution is false, can you? Some people do. They somehow seem to think that evolution is not supported by geology, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, oceanography, anthropology, or any other branch of science and somehow stands on its own as a belief system. Does that mean that all those other disciplines, and any advances they have made, are all wrong or based on falsehoods? Or does it mean that Evolution is a better religion than Creationism, since it is based on ideas that have saved millions of lives and made our day to day living easier?

6)One of Evolution or Religion has to be wrong. Why? why can't they coexist, and have religion be about the stuff we don't know(the afterlife, the creation, etc.) and have science be about what we do know(what can see, find, or discover about the world we live in)? Yet, some people are apparently so thinly attached to their religion that if evolution was proved beyond a doubt, than to them, their religion would become invalid. So, evolution is a threat to them personally, and they get mad and hostile whenever a religiously believed item is even remotely questioned.

I'm sure there are others, but these are the main ones I always see. The other thing I don't like a creationists in general(not to pick on anyone specific) is the loose use of terminology to buck up their position. The people at this presentation being referred to as "scientists" for instance. Only Behe is a scientist(when he's researching and publishing in peer reviewed journals), the rest are philosophers and theologists, and that's only going by their degrees. I don't believe a doctor of Philosophy and Theology has any real background in science, only rhetoric and colorful arguments.

Anyway, that's just where I stand.


111 posted on 03/14/2007 8:18:43 AM PDT by The Enlightener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

In most cases that is because the layman who opposes uses "theory" as almost the opposite of "fact" or "proved."

We have seen many on these threads who say, "Evolution is just a theory" as if to say, "There is no evidence for it; now if it was was a proven fact then you'd have something!"

This is why I post my list of definitions periodically.

112 posted on 03/14/2007 8:37:41 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...
Mini-ping for ID article. The title misses the point; it's all evidence for intelligent design, and it's all evidence for evolution. It depends on who is holding it.




113 posted on 03/14/2007 9:36:29 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Galileo and Copernicus were hounded for their ideas contrary to the establishment of the day.

"By the church, correct?! To support religious doctrine, the church and true believers attacked the scientists talking about observed fact."

What 'observed fact' is that and what is the observation that proves it?

114 posted on 03/14/2007 10:02:01 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound
Interesting. Could one not say that these guys are attempting to fight the Evolution establishment?

You obviously do not know the difference between a scientist and a clergyman.

115 posted on 03/14/2007 10:03:39 AM PDT by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Looks like they've got one scientist anyway.

But Dr. Behe has already admitted that he believes in evolution and said, under oath, that ID requires no facts.


116 posted on 03/14/2007 10:06:35 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
potentially falsifiable hypothesis to go with that yet?

What's falsifiable about evolution?

117 posted on 03/14/2007 10:11:57 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Enlightener
"Evolution is a religion, and has priests and acolytes. Religion has stifled science at the point of a spear for centuries(witness the dark ages). You can't have it both ways and laud the achievements of science in technology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, but then say on the other hand that all of that is based on a false belief, and therefore that airplanes can't possibly fly because evolution is false, can you? Some people do."

Fallacy of Composition, but it was a nice one.

118 posted on 03/14/2007 10:17:18 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

I don't care how He made us....whether through evolution or otherwise...but I always wonder what evolutionists think about how everything started. What or Who "created" or "evolved" out of nothingness? How does something come from nothing? What was the genesis of the chemicals in the "primordial soup" (pre-big bang and before that)? Evolution does not explain the beginning of everything and that is why I believe it does not explain away God or is "anti-Christian".


119 posted on 03/14/2007 10:20:14 AM PDT by Right in Wisconsin (Have a Happy Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: The Enlightener
"3) Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. Pretty hard to support your position on this one unless all known scientific data is wrong."

Fallacy of the biased sample, but another good one.

120 posted on 03/14/2007 10:21:21 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: The Enlightener
"4) Evolution is a conspiracy to wipe out Christianity. Why is it never a conspiracy to wipe out Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism, or Islam, or Taoism, or Shintoism? Could it be that not all these religions are incompatible with evolution?"

Fallacy of appeal to spite, but a good one.

121 posted on 03/14/2007 10:23:21 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

"What's falsifiable about evolution?"

Nothing. It's a historical science that starts with a fact (life came into existence) and throws hypotheses out until there is a "smoking gun" that makes one hypothesis the accepted one. Falsifiability is limited to experimental sciences.

The problem with evolution is that "smoking guns" are hard to come by since these are living creatures, and there's an aversion to attributing anything to the supernatural in science.


122 posted on 03/14/2007 10:25:00 AM PDT by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: The Enlightener
"6)One of Evolution or Religion has to be wrong. Why? why can't they coexist, and have religion be about the stuff we don't know(the afterlife, the creation, etc.) and have science be about what we do know(what can see, find, or discover about the world we live in)? Yet, some people are apparently so thinly attached to their religion that if evolution was proved beyond a doubt, than to them, their religion would become invalid. So, evolution is a threat to them personally, and they get mad and hostile whenever a religiously believed item is even remotely questioned."

Fallacy of appeal to middle ground combined with a fallacy of ridicule; but again, very, very good.

123 posted on 03/14/2007 10:26:16 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

> What's falsifiable about evolution?

Evolution in what sense?

There's the observed fact of evolution, that the frequency of alleles in a population drifts with time. Obviously, that could be falsified by finding a population whose allele frequency was constant across many generations, despite environmental pressures. It's about as likely to happen as dropping an apple and watching it float into space.

But I suspect your question is more about either so-called "macroevolution", common descent or abiogenesis. It should be pointed out that only the first two relate to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a seperate field all together. All of these involve testable hypotheses, too, though.


124 posted on 03/14/2007 10:27:45 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
Nothing. It's a historical science that starts with a fact (life came into existence) and throws hypotheses out until there is a "smoking gun" that makes one hypothesis the accepted one. Falsifiability is limited to experimental sciences.

So it can never be proven or disproven but it is science? LOL

125 posted on 03/14/2007 10:29:06 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Right in Wisconsin

> Evolution does not explain the beginning of everything
> and that is why I believe it does not explain away God or
> is "anti-Christian".

Absolutely spot on. The theory of evolution explains how life changes. It even explains the diversity of forms of life on the planet today (though if you believe in miracles, obviously nothing would have prevented God from tinkering from time to time). It doesn't explain how life began, nor was it meant to.


126 posted on 03/14/2007 10:31:33 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"There's the observed fact of evolution, that the frequency of alleles in a population drifts with time. Obviously, that could be falsified by finding a population whose allele frequency was constant across many generations, despite environmental pressures. It's about as likely to happen as dropping an apple and watching it float into space."

Fallacy of begging the question.

127 posted on 03/14/2007 10:31:41 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

My question is, how could anyone ever falsify the theory of evolution? To focus in a little, how could one falsify the idea that some primate evolved into man?


128 posted on 03/14/2007 10:32:16 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"Absolutely spot on. The theory of evolution explains how life changes. It even explains the diversity of forms of life on the planet today (though if you believe in miracles, obviously nothing would have prevented God from tinkering from time to time). It doesn't explain how life began, nor was it meant to."

Fallacy of confusing cause and effect.

129 posted on 03/14/2007 10:35:37 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: adorno; metmom
The conference is $55 for General Admission

The "E" folks get GRANTS to fund THEIR 'research'!

130 posted on 03/14/2007 10:35:59 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

> Fallacy of begging the question.

Hardly. His question was not specific enough, and I was helping him clarify it.

The parallel question: "What is falsifiable about gravity?" demonstrates the problem.


131 posted on 03/14/2007 10:37:02 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: doc30
What was that saying about a fool and his money?

They buy a Barbra Striesand concert ticket?

132 posted on 03/14/2007 10:38:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
Evolution can be falsified by finding a fossil that is too evolved for the age of the surrounding rock.

Evolution makes predictions about what type of fossils will be found in different layers. They then look in those layers. If they found a fossilized house cat (or anything like that) among the dinosaurs in undisturbed rock evolution would be disproven.

Further finding anything that truly was 'irreducibly complex' would also disprove evolution. Note for something to be 'irreducibly complex' we have to understand it. Because we don't understand something (yet) doesn't make it 'irreducibly complex'.

Now it's your turn. What would falsify ID? What would falsify YEC?

133 posted on 03/14/2007 10:39:16 AM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: doc30; NucSubs
 
In other words, there are people of Christian faith who believe in God but also accept the reality of science.
 
This guy did......
 
...for a while.
 


Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )


Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )


 
 
 
 
 

NIV 1 Timothy 1:20-21
 20.  Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
 21.  which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.   Grace be with you.

 
NIV Proverbs 4:13
   Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.
 

NIV Hebrews 3:6
   But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.
 

NIV Hebrews 3:14
   We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.
 

NIV Hebrews 6:11
   We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.
 
 
NIV Hebrews 12:3
   Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
 
 
NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13
 11.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
 12.  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 13.  if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
 

NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21
 20.  If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
 21.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
 
 
 
NIV 2 John 1:8
  Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
 

NIV Jude 1:21
   Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
 

NIV Revelation 2:25
   Only hold on to what you have until I come.
 

NIV Revelation 3:11
   I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.


134 posted on 03/14/2007 10:40:20 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The big question is that with all of his hyped superiority, why didn't der Fuhrer ever produce children?

OBviously, you've missed Boys from Brazil

with Gregory Peck!


(Why didn't Albert Einstein's super smart genes get passed on?)

135 posted on 03/14/2007 10:43:50 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Right in Wisconsin
I don't care how He made us....whether through evolution or otherwise...
 
Ok...
 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If there were no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

Acts 17:24-26

24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26.
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8. For
man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man
created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.


Was Paul
WRONG about these???

 

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??



And THIS verse is completely against E!!!

NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

136 posted on 03/14/2007 10:47:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

> To focus in a little, how could one falsify the idea that
> some primate evolved into man?

Morphological dissimilarities in homo sapiens would obviously rule that possibility out, if they existed.

Finding australopithecus or other transitional fossils in , North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.

Finding a homo erectus or sapiens skull older than some of the earlier transitional forms.

Finding that the current rate of change of the human genome is too small to account for the magnitude of the differences between humans and chimps since the time of the proposed common ancestor.

Finding a common pseudo-gene between humans and old world monkeys that is not shared by gorillas and chimpanzees.

There are many predictions which common descent requires a priori that can be tested.

Are there any potential findings that could so disqualify ID? No, because whatever is found, people will just wave their hands and say "goddidit".


137 posted on 03/14/2007 10:51:30 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

ping


138 posted on 03/14/2007 10:53:18 AM PDT by spotbust1 (Procrastinators of the world unite . . . . .tomorrow!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

"But someone may ask: "Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, 'who stretches out heaven like a skin?' " Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions."

St. Augustine
On the Literal Meaning of Genesis


139 posted on 03/14/2007 11:03:56 AM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

It must be hell to be you.

All you ever contribute is a stream of bitterness, hatred, and irrational humanism. Did you ever have a teddy bear?


140 posted on 03/14/2007 11:11:12 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

"Evolution can be falsified by finding a fossil that is too evolved for the age of the surrounding rock."

HA! Fossils can be moved to different layers of rock for a thousand reasons. There's no way that finding a fossil that is "too deep" would be considered anything more than a fluke. Much less disproving evolution entirely. Plus, this already happened in many areas and there are plenty of theories about how either the layer dating was wrong or the fossils got pushed around.

"Further finding anything that truly was 'irreducibly complex' would also disprove evolution. Note for something to be 'irreducibly complex' we have to understand it. Because we don't understand something (yet) doesn't make it 'irreducibly complex'."

You can always make up a "just so" story for any structure. Irreducible complexity is a nice idea, but it's no smoking gun for ID.

"Now it's your turn. What would falsify ID? What would falsify YEC?"

First, historical sciences aren't about falsification. Competing theories may survive for hundreds of years before significant evidence disproves them or a "smoking gun" proves them.

YEC has been disproven already, by geology, cosmology, and a hundred other findings. We know the Earth, and the universe is far older than 6,000 years.

ID has a lot going for it to explain why creatures of all types suddenly appear at different times in the fossil record, and it gets by the problematic co-evolution necessary for symbiotic mutualism and the seemingly ever-increasing complexity of the cell. It is becoming more elegant to simply assume an historical ordering force. Evolution already has intelligence colloquially attributed to it by scientists anyway.

"Smoking guns" in historical biology are not easy to come by, since we are not talking about inanimate objects. With a theory as broad as evolution, nothing may be a true smoking gun without more focused predictions.


141 posted on 03/14/2007 11:18:51 AM PDT by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"Pons and Fleischmann were rejected by the scientific community"

You may be one of those freaks that wish to believe that, but the evidence doesn't support that conclusion. They were, of course ridiculed by pundits in the MSM, and the political power base has succeded in pushing funding underground, but I know several nuclear engineers that are drawing salaries over $300,000 / year in research in that very field.

142 posted on 03/14/2007 11:21:04 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Morphological dissimilarities in homo sapiens would obviously rule that possibility out, if they existed.

Why would that make any difference at all, monkeys came from something which came from something which came from something which came from bacteria. No physical anything about any creature can in any way disprove that we evolved from some monkey. There is no way to disprove it by any current differences. The theory can not be disproven.

143 posted on 03/14/2007 11:23:08 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Galileo and Copernicus charged the general public for glitzy Power Point displays? LOL
***

Don't be silly. They lived back in the days of DOS.


144 posted on 03/14/2007 11:23:08 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Finding australopithecus or other transitional fossils in , North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.

How does this disprove that we evolved from monkeys?

145 posted on 03/14/2007 11:24:10 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Finding a homo erectus or sapiens skull older than some of the earlier transitional forms.

The theory thrives today with no transitional forms. One can't concretely prove transitional forms or ages either. There is always enough wiggle room to believe as a person wants.

146 posted on 03/14/2007 11:25:59 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
What 'observed fact' is that and what is the observation that proves it?

Well, certainly you already know what I'm going to say . . . but if you want to have this debate for the 43,304th time, we certainly can.

Let me try the most basic point: it is observed fact that a bunch of small changes equals a big change. I assume you agree that so-called 'micro-evolution' happens.

So doesn't a large number of small, micro-changes equal a big change?

147 posted on 03/14/2007 11:26:05 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Finding that the current rate of change of the human genome is too small to account for the magnitude of the differences between humans and chimps since the time of the proposed common ancestor.

There is no change to human species such that one can prove that we are evolving in any way.

Finding a common pseudo-gene between humans and old world monkeys that is not shared by gorillas and chimpanzees.

Would only indicate a different path.

Given the alternative is that they were created

There are many predictions which common descent requires a priori that can be tested.

Are there any potential findings that could so disqualify ID? No, because whatever is found, people will just wave their hands and say "goddidit".

Both are religions, both are based on faith and esoteric mumbo jumbo that cannot be proven. I used to believe evolution was my creator, now I believe the bible. That's only a change in faith.

148 posted on 03/14/2007 11:31:05 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

"Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution"

If they're "Intelligent Design" scientists, why are they not presenting evidence supporting their "theory" (I'd hardly even credit it with being an hypothesis, personally), rather than evidence challenging evolution? Could it be because The Theory of Natural Selection and other evolutionary theories actually make testable predictions, while Intelligent Design makes none? Pointing at another theory and saying "it doesn't explain this or that" doesn't make that theory wrong, just incomplete.


149 posted on 03/14/2007 11:31:11 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I've seen this program. Very compelling evidence. Worth the time.


150 posted on 03/14/2007 11:32:53 AM PDT by I'm ALL Right! ("Tolerance" is only required of Conservatives and Christians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-392 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