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

Skip to comments.

Science Becoming a Religion
Telegraph ^ | June 10, 2007 | ReasonMcLucus

Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-286 next last
To: editor-surveyor
The whole big bang idea including Humphrey's version of it is bad science and bad theology rolled into a package. Big bang was never based on much of anything other than a misinterpretation of redshift phenomena, but a reasonable person should have no difficulty rejecting it on purely philosophical grounds.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever bang its way out of that, that would be a final condition.

Likewise having a supposedly omniscient God suddenly 17B years ago deciding it would be cool to create a universe where none had existed previously is nonsensical; why wouldn't he have figured that out 17 trillion or 17 quadrillion years ago.

The long odds are that the universe, like God, is eternal, and the creation stories you read both in the bible and in other antique literature refer to the creation of our own local environment, and not the universe.

101 posted on 06/13/2007 8:58:34 PM PDT by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Oh he will! He'll post a jillion links to bafflegab that only a fool like himself would bother to read, just to have company in his confusion and darkness.

It is not considered proper FR etiquette to call other posters fools.

Be that as it may, you post your best argument in favor of creationism and I will provide a rebuttal.

Ground rule--original work, no cut and paste.

102 posted on 06/13/2007 8:59:21 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Hey, what ever happened with the walls of Jerico? Any body ever dug up those crumbled things?


103 posted on 06/13/2007 9:03:19 PM PDT by gbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan

If evolution has been conclusively disproven, then how do you explain human remains found that are millions of years old and are different than humans in their current form?


104 posted on 06/13/2007 9:10:11 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
On the contrary, sir. I have witnessed the supernatural,

I'd like to know exactly what supernatural event or being you witnessed.

105 posted on 06/13/2007 9:16:30 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan
You’ve got it about evolution. The the entire thing about black holes, white holes, dark matter, dark energy, relativistic time and everything else is basically munged just about as badly as evolution. All of the major untestable theories in science are going to have to be redone.

Are you going to tell us that the Earth is stationary next?

106 posted on 06/13/2007 9:18:10 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Wait 'til He finds out I drank His booze and chased His women. Yikes!

Oh ye of little faith! He already knows what you have done and even what you forgot you done. He, also, knows what you will do tomorrow and just how many tomorrows you will have!

Yikes, indeed!
107 posted on 06/13/2007 9:19:29 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Theo; presently no screen name
Evolution is anti-God. Nothing real about it.

There seem to be fewer and fewer of us at FR who see that. It is indeed a diabolical way to make people see Scripture as irrelevant and incorrect and quaint.

Ironically, and however opposite your intent, many will read that and suppose you meant that the characterization of evolution as "anti-God" is the "diabolical way to make people see Scripture as irrelevant and incorrect and quaint".

What both of you probably miss is that this way of looking at it is all too plausible. After all you (two) are basically inviting people to reject the Bible and Christianity in total if they happen to find antievolutionary creationism implausible. Heck, you're damn near demanding that they do so.

In fact your premises are shared almost exactly and completely with the most militant and extreme sort of "scientific" atheist. Sure your conclusions differ, but your logic is nearly identical. You ignore (or are oblivious) to the fact that this logic will carry many, and probably far more, in the opposite direction from what you intend.

Of course those that DO manage to reconcile science and scripture, and hang onto their faith after finding out that "creation science" is a crock, will still find you present and now ready to castigate them as enemies of Christ. After all adopting a irenic and humble approach to those with a different understanding of the theological doctrine of creation, and it's relation to secular science, wouldn't allow you the fun of denouncing fellow Christians as dupes of Satan.

So have fun denouncing and renouncing your brothers in Christ. You usually won't get a message like this one. Most of the time we "mockers" will be watching your antics without comment, some smiling and hopefully the better of us shaking our heads sadly.

108 posted on 06/13/2007 9:26:46 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping


109 posted on 06/13/2007 9:39:59 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

He knows when you’ve been sleeping,
He knows when you’re awake.
He knows if you’ve been bad or good,
so be good for goodness sake.

Oops - wrong myth.


110 posted on 06/13/2007 9:40:10 PM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf

ping


111 posted on 06/13/2007 9:44:42 PM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
And I'd like to share but it's personal. If they occurred to someone else, I would share. My immediate circle knows for they witnessed 'some' of them. One or two tried to explain it away but, when push came to shove, they knew better. It's difficult for some to accept something they can't figure out. Excuses and maybes were their only defense but that went over like a wet balloon. It showed more their unwillingness to accept the supernatural than it did to cast doubt on what happened - which was their intent.

Our Heavenly Father does shower favor and blessings on His children. Much like our earthly father in his own capacity. But God's is limitless and miraculous.
112 posted on 06/13/2007 9:57:48 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; presently no screen name

How arrogant, saying that those who “reconcile science and Scripture” are those who support the contention that “all this” sprang from muck by random chance and that the involvement of God is irrelevant and that it didn’t happen as described by Scripture. You’re implying that those who believe the Scriptural account are anti-science; that we’re illogical. You come right out and say that “’creation science’” is a crock.” Arrogant, whether you recognize it or not.

There are many of us who “reconcile science and Scripture” and who also maintain that God made “all of this” as described in Scripture. Of course, you’re free to agree with the atheists that God is impotent, irrelevant, and a liar. As for me, I’ll believe that Scripture is dependable, and that it’s consistent with the evidence.

As far as I’m concerned, you’re the one quashing people’s faith in the Lord and Scripture. “Shaking our heads sadly” — how proud you must feel to disbelieve God’s Word (and the evidence, I must add).


113 posted on 06/13/2007 10:09:51 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Theo
The very first phrase in Genesis says that 'With Wisdom, God created'. The metaphysical preceded the physical. Current cosmological explanation states that space and time are coming into existence as or in order to generate the expanding universe (expanding into 'newly arrived space and time' or newly created by the energy pushing expansion, or something else just as exotic). Before the first matter of any kind, energy, space, and time existed, the 'wisdom of God' as it were which allowed the expression of matter and forces. If that's not a metaphysical notion for which science has arrived at data verification then there is no meaning to physical or metaphysical.

To deny there is first the metaphysical then the physical is toplay at dumbness for the sake of avoiding instruction. It is the human trait SZatan epxloited in the Garden, so we ought not be surprised when even very intelligent people play the agme thusly. Just be thankful they continue to do the science and leave them be in their chosen state of denial.

114 posted on 06/13/2007 10:33:50 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You’re implying that those who believe the Scriptural account are anti-science

No. I'm implying no such thing. What I'm saying (or at least intending to say) quite explicitly is that they have a extremely naive and simplistic understanding of science (and scripture) much like, and of much the same character as, the naive and simplistic views of militant and extreme "scientific" atheists.

I would never say you're anti-science. You have to understand something to some degree in order to oppose it. I don't think you have a sufficient grasp of what science is to be "anti-science". At best (or worst) you're anti-what-you-think-science-is. But what you think science is bears no recognizable relation to the actual thing.

I suppose your perception of mainstream science to be akin to a Lyndon LaRouche follower's perception of mainstream politics: A crazy conspiracy (or mass delusion) in furtherance of a Satanic agenda.

How far wrong am I, really?

115 posted on 06/13/2007 10:33:57 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.

As evolution is to Genesis, so Global Warming is to Revelations. I wonder if they'll come up with a replacement for the Gospel...

116 posted on 06/13/2007 10:35:44 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You come right out and say that “’creation science’” is a crock.” Arrogant, whether you recognize it or not.

You're free to call it arrogant. But I by no means came "right out" and said that. This is my conclusion after following the antievolution movement closely for many years. I'm almost certain I've read far more antievolution/creationist literature than you've even seen. I've attended creationist conventions, and meetings of local groups. I've dug for "man prints" alongside creationists down in the Paluxy River.

My opinion that creationism is a crock is a considered one, having extensively (and initially somewhat sympathetically) examined the case for it such as creationists themselves attempt to make it.

117 posted on 06/13/2007 10:39:56 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Theo
who also maintain that God made “all of this” as described in Scripture

I've met many "creationists," but so far only one humble (and wise) fellow who simply accepted creation "as describe in Scripture". Every other creationist has insisted on all manner of nonsense such as vapor canopies, a global flood stacking the geological column, and dozens of other imaginative constructs of which the Bible knows nothing.

For more on this please refer to my previously ignored reply to you on another thread.

118 posted on 06/13/2007 10:47:40 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
After all you (two) are basically inviting people to reject the Bible and Christianity

WOW! It's amazing how your twist things. And in that twisting - you give me way too much power. If they don't heed the Word of God, what makes you think they will listen to me? My brothers/sisters in Christ are grounded in The Truth and unshakable.

Of course those that DO manage to reconcile science and scripture, and hang onto their faith after finding out that "creation science" is a crock

'Hanging' onto something doesn't give the impression of being grounded. Hanging makes you culpable to swing which ever way the wind blows to suit yourself. What do you have faith in?
119 posted on 06/13/2007 10:51:24 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
Are you going to tell us that the Earth is stationary next?

Actually I think there is a geocentrist in the thread presently! I'm not going to give the screen name or ping because I don't recall for sure. Anyway we have had at least one or two show up in these threads. Believe it or not! No flat earthers though. (Yet.)

120 posted on 06/13/2007 10:52:30 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[We do deal with “how these organizms lived and died,their diet, environment, social structure, culture,” but it is humans and human cultures we are dealing with, not fossils.]

By watchign video cassettes of them in action no doubt— als by reading newspapaers that are dated about 66 million years old which show pictures of dinos and macro-evolving oprganisms- after all [And, that science is verifiable, which divine revelation is not.] Yup- no assumptions whatsoever- just verify evolution by watching millions year old Videos.

Believe what you want, but don’t call it science.


121 posted on 06/13/2007 11:03:16 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; SALChamps03

What is the point of arguing belief? People will believe what they want. If their belief is strong enough, no logic or proof will shake it. In many instances the strength of their belief is viewed as a virtue. This is a good thing or a bad thing, depending on which side of the discussion you’re on.


122 posted on 06/13/2007 11:09:31 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Oops - wrong myth.

No oops! You are full of wrong myths! One day, hopefully, you will know the difference between fact and fiction. And, then, you will be singing, "I can see clearly now" and give thanks to The Almighty for keeping you until your blinders came off.
123 posted on 06/13/2007 11:10:26 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

oh wait, and don’t forget the 60 million year old eyewitnesses that can verify all the hypothesis of evolution. You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea, lizards leaping into the air and hten later developing wings because of the ‘need’ to feed in an environment other than the ground etc etc. Yup- Plenty of investigating reporters were on the scene back then witnessing actual events as they unfolded.

You see folks- Evo scientists are allowed to look at old bones, make up some elaborate story, and call it science- However, ID’ers aren’t allowed to point out factual design in nature- point to the many instances of it, point out that it is irreducibly complex, without being accused of infering *gasp* that there might just perhaps be a disigner behind the design. Harumph... Why that thar is religion! Psuedo-science-Apologetics!


124 posted on 06/13/2007 11:11:12 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: durasell

and what kind of logic ignores biological impossibilities, and tries to brush aside specific complexities, and ignores mathematical impossibilities? There is plenty of logic to strengthen faith IF one isn’t adverse to throwing off the dogma embroidered blinders.


125 posted on 06/13/2007 11:13:10 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

One of the beauties of faith is that it asks to make the jump beyond logic.


126 posted on 06/13/2007 11:15:46 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
"Real scientists encourage questions."

And here's the crux of the issue. Many scientists are not encouraging questioning of their belief in Macroevolution.

They are being hypocrites because they need Macroevolution to support their religion (see worldview), and will defend it tooth and nail dogmatically and with zeal.

At least Creationists accept that religion/worldview is a component of why they support Creationism. Macroevolutionists should be so forthcoming.

127 posted on 06/13/2007 11:15:53 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
This is where you are incorrect - I’m not full of ANY myths. I understand there are a great number of religious adherents (as there are a great number of religions), but I simply cannot grasp how anyone can be so certain about something for which there is zero evidence, and then have the temerity to accuse others of being misguided.
128 posted on 06/13/2007 11:16:35 PM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

p.s.

If you apply the same criteria to faith as you do to science, then the faith dies. And that is not a good thing.


129 posted on 06/13/2007 11:17:44 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
Decent piece.

Prediction before reading beyond comment 1: at least a few Macroevolutionists are going to make snide comments about the religion/relgion typo and Creationists' intelligence.


A big thing is, that science can almost completely function without even delving into origins. There's little reason on a scientific level for why Macroevolutionists are willing to fight so irrationally hard on this issue to the point where it becomes blindly obvious that Macroevolution has become for them an article of faith.

P.S. Personal opinion is that bringing global warming/climate change into this isn't good for 'the cause.'

130 posted on 06/13/2007 11:22:13 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo

“Evolution is anti-God. Nothing real about it.
There seem to be fewer and fewer of us at FR who see that. It is indeed a diabolical way to make people see Scripture as irrelevant and incorrect and quaint.”

Amen to people wising up to the fact that Scripture is irrelevant and incorrect and quaint !


131 posted on 06/13/2007 11:24:26 PM PDT by BuckeyeForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat
Argggg.....

Here it is again (not intending to mudsling you, just this very common comment).

Science and Macroevolution are not interchangable. At most, Macroevolutionists would believe that Macroevolution is a tiny subset of science, particularly in the biology and astronomy fields.

132 posted on 06/13/2007 11:25:24 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

later read


133 posted on 06/13/2007 11:34:44 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
that there might just perhaps be a designer behind the design

Exactly. Autos, clothes, buildings, bridges, roadways, airplanes, tunnels, etc. all have designers/architects. But the most incredible creation comes into existence with a 'puff'. One is blinded/deceived to believe that - I can't imagine anyone being that lame on purpose.
134 posted on 06/13/2007 11:37:39 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan

“The long odds are that the universe, like God, is eternal, and the creation stories you read both in the bible and in other antique literature refer to the creation of our own local environment, and not the universe.”

Nice try, but incorrect. The creation myth in Genesis does not pertain only to “our own local environment.” In Genesis 1, the Earth was created with the rest of the universe on Day One, even before light was created and the distinction between night and day. The “sky” was created on Day Two, and the sun and the moon on the fourth day. The whole thing is pretty whacky.


135 posted on 06/13/2007 11:38:59 PM PDT by BuckeyeForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeForever
If you had the one irrefutable argument against ID, God, etc. would you post it? I can think of few things more cruel than destroying someone’s faith.
136 posted on 06/13/2007 11:42:07 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeForever
In Genesis 1, the Earth was created with the rest of the universe on Day One...

No it wasn't,...in fact, it goes out of it's way tell you exactly the opposite.

Here's the relevant passages

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The key phrase here is: without form, and void. It's long been known by philosophers that a thing has two basic and essential qualities:

1...its shape, or structure.
2...and its substance

Genesis 1 tells us the the earth was without both of these in the beginning of creation. The fact that it simply mentions does not mean the exact opposite. That would be ludicrous.

In fact, given that Genesis 1 does comment on such clear, philosophical logic, it makes the notion that it was invented by ignorant bronze age goat herders all the more absurd.

137 posted on 06/14/2007 12:36:39 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: stormer
I simply cannot grasp how anyone can be so certain about something for which there is zero evidence

I cannot grasp that you refuse to see the evidence. Seek and you will find.

then have the temerity to accuse others of being misguided.

I can say it because it's true. Deception is real, it's not a myth. God is The Creator, He's no myth. His Word is Truth, it's not a myth. There is right and wrong, Truth and deception, good and evil, Heaven and Hell, all real, no myths. There are two sides to every coin. You wanna play crap shoot with the dice having an eternity tag on it is your choice. We decide our own destiny for eternity here and now depending on who we believe - God or man. Sadly, even tomorrow maybe too late for some - probably too busy unraveling mysteries of the universe with no thought of the Creator of universe.
138 posted on 06/14/2007 12:43:27 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: csense

Sorry for the few syntax errors in my last post....it’s late, and I’m tired.


139 posted on 06/14/2007 12:44:57 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; stormer

stormer, your comment (to which 138 is a response) can just as easily be leveled at Macroevolutionists. Actually, at face value, it seemed that you were referring to Macroevolutionists, but see that you are one of them.


140 posted on 06/14/2007 1:01:19 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeForever
It's only whacky if you're solidly grounded in the Macroevolutionary worldview.

There can be light without the Sun and stars. A hint of this, is that for the new Earth, there won't be a Sun. God will be the light.

And you point out that the order of creation in the Bible does not fit into the Macroevolutionist model. While disagree that this constitutes 'whackiness,' agree that this just goes to show for the Christian Macroevolutionists out there that the Bible and Macroevolution aren't reconcilable. It comes down to who is more trustworthy, Man or God?

141 posted on 06/14/2007 1:07:00 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Was going to add to the earlier post to you: it just goes to show how similar in their opinions Creationists and Macroevolutionists are—if one is being religious/dogmatic/zealous, then so is the other.


142 posted on 06/14/2007 1:08:46 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
You are deceived and that deception has led you to believe only what you understand.

You prefer to believe things you do not understand? It ain't real easy to see the wisdom in that.

And that's arrogance and pridefulness to deny the supernatural - you think man is supreme and nothing is above it. Since you can't understand how it happens then it's an impossibility to you.

Not impossible. Unproven. Unsupported by evidence. There are a great many things I don't understand, and I consider myself a pretty smart guy. But lay it out for me, and the odds are pretty good I'll be able to follow.

Narrow thinking.

Editorial suggestion: Your sentence fragment has an unneeded word. "Thinking" would suffice.

Since you deny the supernatural Awesomeness of God

Like, the supernatural Awesomeness? Dude. Are you quoting from the Gospel according to Keanu?

On the contrary, sir. I have witnessed the supernatural,

When, where and how? Because unless you have more senses beyond the customary five, anything you can witness is by definition natural. Light hits your retinas, sound enters your ears, warm or cold or pressure or pain reaches your nerve endings in the skin, and chemicals reach your tongue or nostrils.

143 posted on 06/14/2007 1:37:12 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat
“Science is at odds with my religious beliefs, therefore science must be a religious belief.”

Don’t be a dufus. You know liberal/scientists today already have the answers and are only looking for evidence to support that answer (and also get some gov’t funding along the way). Man made global warming, darwinism and experiments on unborn babies are just a few examples.

144 posted on 06/14/2007 4:18:35 AM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
that there might just perhaps be a disigner behind the design

Is this like turtles all the way down? There's a designer for the designer for the designer for the designer. . . If everything "designed" needs a designer, who designed God?

You know, those faolks that witnessed wolves taking to the sea,

This is not proposed by evolutionists.

lizards leaping into the air and hten later developing wings because of the ‘need’ to feed in an environment other than the ground etc etc.

Again, not proposed by evolutionists. Evolution does not come about because of need. It is the result of multiple small changes occurring by chance and being selected for because they are useful, although they might not have the same use millions of years down the road.

145 posted on 06/14/2007 4:46:32 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Yes, you are arrogant, saying that I’m not anti-science because in my ignorance I don’t even know what science is.

In my 40 years on earth, I’ve earned two bachelor’s degrees and two master’s degrees, earning a staight 4.0 in grad school. I tell you that so that you understand that I am not ignorant. Your assumptions about me, and about those who believe Scripture to be true (and that therefore evolution is not true), is wrong.

“How far wrong am I, really?” You are so arrogant, you don’t even realize how arrogant you are.


146 posted on 06/14/2007 5:38:37 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeForever

Do you ever wonder why you expend so much energy resisting God? Do you ever wonder why with your reason you denounce the One who gives meaning? Do you ever wonder why you even try to find meaning if your presumption is that ultimately no meaning exists?


147 posted on 06/14/2007 5:47:24 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Theo
I’ve earned two bachelor’s degrees and two master’s degrees, earning a staight 4.0 in grad school. I tell you that so that you understand that I am not ignorant.

In science?

It's perfectly possible to be knowledgable about some things and ignorant about others. For instance, my opinion on Chinese poetry isn't worth a plugged nickle.

148 posted on 06/14/2007 5:49:22 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

I can’t remember which, but we have a state public official in Georgia that subscribes to that philosophy.


149 posted on 06/14/2007 8:38:54 AM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
You prefer to believe things you do not understand? It ain't real easy to see the wisdom in that.

Do you truly understand the complexity of your brain - even the 90% you don't use? If you say yes, you're lying, if you say no, then you believe you don't have a brain - all according to 'your theory'.

Not impossible. Unproven. Unsupported by evidence. There are a great many things I don't understand, and I consider myself a pretty smart guy. But lay it out for me, and the odds are pretty good I'll be able to follow.

Unproven to you! Any proof will always appear to have flaws to those who choose not to believe. It's always those that 'consider' themselves smart - that need things spelled out for them. Sorry, smartie, you want to learn - seek and find yourself. It's an open book test but leave your pride at the front desk. If you still don't get it, you just may have more pride than you are willing to admit and/or give up.

Narrow thinking. Editorial suggestion: Your sentence fragment has an unneeded word. "Thinking" would suffice.

Oh yeah. It's the 'consider myself smart' mindset - telling someone else what they should do, think, and say. I wrote MY post with narrow because that's what was needed.

Like, the supernatural Awesomeness? Dude. Are you quoting from the Gospel according to Keanu?

I don't dabble in mindless chatter.

When, where and how? Because unless you have more senses beyond the customary five, anything you can witness is by definition natural. Light hits your retinas, sound enters your ears, warm or cold or pressure or pain reaches your nerve endings in the skin, and chemicals reach your tongue or nostrils.

Now you see why 'narrow' was used. Perhaps it went over your head one more time. Nonetheless, isn't it incredible how God created us? And each with different fingerprints - each one of us is unique. No need to look at the unique and intricate way we were create as proof. We'll just add that to your 'unproven' category because you were told you came from ape. As far as when/where/how, reading your post leads me to believe it's was out of your scope to understand or grasp. When you get over 'your smartness' you might learn something.

anything you can witness is by definition natural.

by man's definition. I'm talking Supernatural - something hard to conceive while choosing to live according to man's definitions and ape driven theories.
150 posted on 06/14/2007 9:10:19 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-286 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