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

Skip to comments.

A War Between Science and Religon? Ask Isaac Newton(a Scientist Guided by religious fervor)
AOL News ^ | 06/19/2007 | Dinesh D' Souza

Posted on 06/20/2007 9:05:55 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last
To: jwalsh07
You don't know much about Sir Issac, do you?

What is it that you know that you think is so important?

101 posted on 06/21/2007 3:06:10 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I know that you don’t know much about Newton based on your comment but what you know or don’t know is of relatively little importance to me. But for the record Newton didn’t just “dabble” in religion, he was consumed by it.


102 posted on 06/21/2007 4:36:58 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Considering he pretty much definde science and methodological naturalism, that seems a bit odd. Either he was schizophrenic, or he understood that religion and science occupy separate and distinct spheres of knowledge.

Either way, I don’t follow the argument in the thread starting article. Scientists can be religious, but science does not study miracles.


103 posted on 06/21/2007 4:41:38 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: burzum

I’m srry, but bacteria dying and then having the few remaining end up being resistant isn’t “evolution”.

It’s still the same bacteria, it’s just had all it’s other traits knocked out of the gene pool. Congrats, you’ve just narrowed the natural genetic potential of a species.

Taking a flu vaccine- for one, is a virus alive? For another, all you end up doing is restricting the most recent population. It’s still the flu. No evolution, just more pigeon-holing.

When the bacteria that keep becoming resistant to our drugs changes into a completely new species (one not formally present in it’s host culture) we’ll start talking about bacteria evolving.


104 posted on 06/21/2007 4:49:04 AM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: burzum
Didn't I just finish telling you that evolution does not have a conscious design process?

Smirk. Didn't I just tell you we aint talking bout no bacteria in a petri dish, neither? BTW, the flu is still the flu is still the flu, it ain't created a new Genus. Same with your bacteria. W/ bacteria, the genetic mutation that allows them to be resistant to certain medicines, which kill off all of their compatriots, is passed on to thier "offspring". This is genetic mutation amplified by natural selection. Duh. No one has a problem with that. The problem arises when you suggest LOOOOOOONG term creation of Genus based on these minor accumulations. (BTW, creation implies a creator, hence the routine use of these terms by evolutionists regarding evolution). If >99% of mutations are bad for the organism, and the remaining ones may be beneficial, how do you suppose they passed on to all the other squirrels, say? You have FAITH that what you see in a petri dish is the same thing that happens in sexual reproduction. FIne with me, but it is not provable. We have NO EVIDENCE of genus creation via natural selection, just assumptions, hyposthesis, and guesses built on bones in the dirt.

Does not it seem odd to you that we find bones of several animal SPECIES that have not changed over MILLIONS of years? Oh, I know, they reached the peak, had not further beneficial mutations, and/or had not envioronmental pressures to induce natural selection. This, in my mind, is completely untenable. Believe it if you will, for this is untestable.

105 posted on 06/21/2007 5:01:46 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
When the bacteria that keep becoming resistant to our drugs changes into a completely new species (one not formally present in it’s host culture) we’ll start talking about bacteria evolving.

Are you so completely ignorant that you don't know that evolution studies on bacteria start with a single cell?

106 posted on 06/21/2007 5:04:02 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Are science and religion compatible?...."Totally"

How do you explain the age of the earth versus the Genesis account, as most men read it?

107 posted on 06/21/2007 5:07:22 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Don't forget the "global flood" (for which there is no scientific evidence).

Be cause the Global Flood occured, I would expect to find:

1. Large fields of biomass (plant and animal) buried under other sediment.

2. Large numbers of animals buried intact.

3. Catastrophic rearrangement of land masses, valley creation and mountain upheaval.

4. Evidence of a worldwide greenhouse, with evidence of tropical plantlife qat the poles.

5. Evidence from mankind in a variety of cultures, either oral or written.

This seems ample evidence to me...

108 posted on 06/21/2007 5:14:13 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Be cause the Global Flood occured, I would expect to find:

1. Large fields of biomass (plant and animal) buried under other sediment.

2. Large numbers of animals buried intact.

3. Catastrophic rearrangement of land masses, valley creation and mountain upheaval.

4. Evidence of a worldwide greenhouse, with evidence of tropical plantlife qat the poles.

5. Evidence from mankind in a variety of cultures, either oral or written.

This seems ample evidence to me...

And all of those have better explanations than a global flood.

Lets try something very simple: The commonly accepted date for the global flood is about 4350 years ago. That is a time period that is well-known by soil scientists and archaeologists (not geologists, as you are dealing with soils, not rock, at that young age). Find a soil column that spans, say, the last 10,000 years. If there was a global flood about 4350 years ago it will show up in that soil column. Given the claims made about the flood it should be noticeable.

In fact, there are many areas where such soil columns have been examined spanning the 4350 year old date attributed to the flood and there was no evidence of a global flood. Even worse are the cultural and genetic continuities before and after the date attributed to the flood. The Egyptians were keeping good records of the annual flooding of the Nile 4350 years ago, but they failed to mention a global flood. DNA has been found in many areas of the world which shows a continuity before and after the date claimed for the flood, but no replacement with Near Eastern DNA.

You also mentioned flood legends in early cultures? Almost all early cultures lived near water, and floods happen all the time (hear about New Orleans?). Now if you could show that all of the flood stories originated at the exact same time that might be better, but wasn't that supposed to be the time when there were no people left to tell tales?

I don't know why you are asking about biomass, fossils, land masses, valleys, mountain upheaval, etc., as those events took place millions of years ago. The claims for a global flood were only 4350 years ago.

It seems you have not thought out the supposed evidence presented in support of a global flood, and examined that evidence in light of scientific findings.

Here is a link that might help: Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak

109 posted on 06/21/2007 7:36:19 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Such logical contradictions, where to begin.

1. The Bible is arguably the most concise, accurate historical record we have before 400BC, and has been proven correct repeatedly, never disproven with archaeology. However, you discount it in favor of Egyptian records that a full of holes & contradictions, and the timelines commonly accepted for the dynasties are often disputed amongst Egytologists.

2. Dating that relies on decay methods have numberous assumptions, such as intial amounts of parent/daughter elements, decay rates, and no outside influences, e.g. migration of elements, cross-contamination, etc. Often, dates are off by 50% with different methods, and some dates can be off by more. Several methods argue for a young earth, buit of course you will discount those immediatly.

3. Verify the earth is the age you assert, without any assumptions in the so called dating methods offered for evidence.

The real crux of the matter, is can the New Testament be trusted in it's account of Jesus resurrection. And if so, do I choose to believe he did, and if so, who is he?

110 posted on 06/21/2007 8:44:48 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Such logical contradictions, where to begin.

1. The Bible is arguably the most concise, accurate historical record we have before 400BC, and has been proven correct repeatedly, never disproven with archaeology. However, you discount it in favor of Egyptian records that a full of holes & contradictions, and the timelines commonly accepted for the dynasties are often disputed amongst Egytologists.

The Bible has been "disproved with archaeology" in at least one instance. There is simply no evidence for a global flood at the appointed time. You can deny that evidence, or you can disbelieve it, but that will not make it go away.


2. Dating that relies on decay methods have numberous assumptions, such as intial amounts of parent/daughter elements, decay rates, and no outside influences, e.g. migration of elements, cross-contamination, etc. Often, dates are off by 50% with different methods, and some dates can be off by more. Several methods argue for a young earth, buit of course you will discount those immediatly.

You seem to be equating "assumptions" with "baseless guesses." That is not correct.

You berate scientists for, as an example, assuming decay rates are constant (an assumption for which there is a lot of evidence). But by taking the opposite position, that decay rates fluctuate all over the place, you fall into an even bigger contradiction than the one you accuse scientists of because there is no significant evidence that decay rates do fluctuate. It seems that you are the one with the "baseless guess" here, not the scientists. Your other objections are on the same order. Scientists do not just pull assumptions out of the thin air.

But if you want just one decent dating method, try tree rings from the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. You can count individual rings. You can see the effects of volcanoes and other natural disasters of known dates in the rings, and they show up where they should (that demolishes the argument of more than one ring per year). And by comparing the ring sequences from many trees, and overlapping those sequences, you can go back some 12,600 years. This ring sequence in turn can calibrate the radiocarbon dating method, as it accounts for atmospheric variation of 14C. So, another one of those nasty assumptions is cross-checked.


3. Verify the earth is the age you assert, without any assumptions in the so called dating methods offered for evidence.

Nothing wrong with assumptions, as I have noted above. They can be checked and poorly-supported assumptions don't last long.

If you are interested, here are some good links for the radiocarbon and radiometric dating methods:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


111 posted on 06/21/2007 9:06:03 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
How do you explain the age of the earth versus the Genesis account, as most men read it?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...."

Quantum Theory. Though by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as the position and and momentum of a system can never be simultaneously known, we can never really perceive of the "beginning", although the contemporary expansion of the universe "seems" to account fairly well for a "creation event" within the constraints of the Planck Time.

Given this, it doesn't stretch credulity that such expansion by E=mc2, where mass(m) is relativistically constrained, that 15 billion years might be expressed otherwise as "6 days".

"If I knew Him I'd be Him." Yet He doesn't seem stingy in time.

112 posted on 06/21/2007 9:23:56 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The Bible has been "disproved with archaeology" in at least one instance. There is simply no evidence for a global flood at the appointed time. You can deny that evidence, or you can disbelieve it, but that will not make it go away.

We agree to disagree on that, and you have not addressed the evidence I raised, on you offered your own explantion based on Millions of years. Try some verifiable evidence or archaeoligical errancy, and before you do, consider the previous assertions, later proven inccorect, eg Jericos existence, David's existence, Beltashazzar's kingship, etc.

...radiocarbon...

I never alluded to radiocarbon, but rather radiometric, such as Pb/Pb isochron. Big difference, and you know it.

...tree rings...

Do you understand correlation coeficients (r-values)? Do you understand Statistical Significance (p-values)? If you do, do some persoanal, independent research on dendrochronolgy (outside of talkorigins) and try and understand it's inherent weekness for dates earlier that circa 1700 AD. Research Bristle Cone Pines, and the methuselah tree, and it's age...

Just because a theologian says something, don't mean it's true, as is often the case. The same is true concerning scientist, even more so, in my estimation.

113 posted on 06/21/2007 9:32:08 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
FWIW, I was a skeptic before I became a Christian. After looking at the evidence for both sides, considering the assumptions behind each set of arguments, and researched both, I became a believer.

Neither of us will convince the other, but my hope is that we both would honestly look at each set of arguments, the assumptions behind each, and make a decision.

You'll notice no one argues about grvity, where babies come from, or the effect of cigarette smoking. These are scientifically verifiable. However, the discussion of age of the earth, the diversity of Genus on the earth, and the origins of life all require faith.

I'm done.

114 posted on 06/21/2007 10:04:07 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Define Evidence.

Do you believe Troy was a real city? If so, why? Do you believe Jesus lived, died, and ressurected? Why? Do you believe in Anacrtica? Do you believe that men actually went to the moon? These ALL require faith to some degree.

You quote Hebrews 12:1 and then give only examples of things that can be seen. It is the things that cannot be seen that requires faith.
115 posted on 06/21/2007 11:54:13 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
It’s still the same bacteria, it’s just had all it’s other traits knocked out of the gene pool. Congrats, you’ve just narrowed the natural genetic potential of a species.

This is factually incorrect. Studies of bacterial adaptation start with a single cell. Any adaptation occurs as a result of mutation.

What do you have in mind when you refer to bacterial species?

116 posted on 06/21/2007 11:59:04 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: js1138

When refering to a bacterial species, I am refering to the culture.

Every mutation was one within the confines of its own genetic makeup.

Killing so many of one strain within a culture only provides that those mutations are no long represented in the numbers they once were.

It is still the same culture, regardless of it’s cellular population.


117 posted on 06/21/2007 12:09:12 PM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Every mutation was one within the confines of its own genetic makeup.

What specifically do you mean by that?

118 posted on 06/21/2007 12:11:10 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: js1138

That the mutations that occur in the sample are not outside of the species. There is no species jump in such mutations, any more than there is between a blonde man and a burnette man.


119 posted on 06/21/2007 12:22:35 PM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

What do you mean by bacterial species? What specific limitations are you claiming?


120 posted on 06/21/2007 12:27:16 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Thank you. Although you have a much more scientific way of stating it, I believe we agree.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep It doesn't say when that was but as science shows it had to be millions or billions of years ago. Then we read the last 1/2 of verse 2 and it tells us:

And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

There was an "age" before this one, the one in which the dinosaurs lived and God destroyed that age. The last 1/2 of verse 2 tells us when our present, 2nd age, began. That's when the "6 days" started and even then we have to remember what Peter said - "a day with the Lord is as 1,000 years". I believe that applies here.

121 posted on 06/21/2007 12:29:31 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Look, I’ve said it several times now-

The limitation is that the strain will remain the strain will remain the strain!

No amount of “Adaptation” has ever shown otherwise.


122 posted on 06/21/2007 12:30:01 PM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

Define strain.


123 posted on 06/21/2007 12:33:29 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
You quote Hebrews 12:1 and then give only examples of things that can be seen. It is the things that cannot be seen that requires faith.

You are correct. My intention is, if we have not seen it with our own eyes, touched it with our own hands, or otherwise have had first hand experience of it, we are taking someone else's word on it, and accepting that word on faith.

Jesus, claiming to be God in the flesh, backed his claims with miracles, and with the resurrection. However, since we can't verifiably prove this either way, it requires faith.

The assassination of Lincoln is the same. We can only go off of the historical evidence, and choose to accept or deny it.

When I download images from the Hubble telescope website, I believe they were actually taken by a telescope in orbit above the earth, of objects far, far away. However, I can't prove this conclusively to one determined to disbelieve, I can only cite the evidence for which I believe it. I have faith in the veracity of the claims of those who post the image, an thus in the validity of the images themselves. However, I have never touched the Hubble myself, have not verified it is in space, nor that it was not in fact focusing on a pretty picture drawn by an artist in Nevada. Of course, I like you, believe it is there. Whether or not someone feasibly could "touch it" or not is moot, for I can't.

95% of what we believe, we have never proven to ourselves as true, we have simply took someone else's word for it.

124 posted on 06/21/2007 12:34:22 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

Let me be more specific. At the molecular level, what kind of event, required by evolution, are you asserting cannot happen or has not been observed to happen?


125 posted on 06/21/2007 12:35:59 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: js1138

At the molecular level? Do you mean the chemical level?

DNA doesn’t change from it’s basic coding, if that’s what you’re asking.

The DNA that makes a strain of bacteria into that strain remains. (that is, unless you expose the organism to a chemical like alcohol).


126 posted on 06/21/2007 12:43:57 PM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Let me be more specific. At the molecular level, what kind of event, required by evolution, are you asserting cannot happen or has not been observed to happen?

For all the adaptive genetic testing of the mutations and natural selection of E coli, it is still readily identifiable as E coli. No new bacteria have been produced. Similiar to breeds of dogs, just different mechanisms.

127 posted on 06/21/2007 12:47:35 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: js1138

“A group of organisms of the same species, having distinctive characteristics but not usually considered a separate breed or variety.”

Quickest reference at hand. (dictionary.com)

Fits my usuage.


128 posted on 06/21/2007 12:49:39 PM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
DNA doesn’t change from it’s basic coding, if that’s what you’re asking.

Be more specific. What kind of change to the genome is required by evolution, but has not been observed?

Here, for example, are a few of the known kinds of changes to DNA.

  1. Missense
  2. Nonsense
  3. Insertion
  4. Deletion
  5. Duplication
  6. Frameshift
  7. Repeat expansion

When you say DNA can't change it's basic coding, what do you mean, specifically?

129 posted on 06/21/2007 12:51:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Darwin’s book is should have been named “Origin of Genus”, for that is the real debate here.


130 posted on 06/21/2007 12:54:00 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
“A group of organisms of the same species, having distinctive characteristics but not usually considered a separate breed or variety.”

How does this definition apply to bacteria? How does it apply to a population that descends from a single cell, as with the experiments done while studying antibiotic resistance.

131 posted on 06/21/2007 12:54:20 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Darwin’s book is should have been named “Origin of Genus”, for that is the real debate here.

Why is that a different debate?

132 posted on 06/21/2007 12:55:14 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray; Coyoteman

Dr. Pitman on problems with Carbon 14 and Tree Ring dating:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html


133 posted on 06/21/2007 2:20:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Seeing’s as my life has more or less NOT gone down the specific trail you are leading, I’m going to leave it at this-

A duck is a duck.

I don’t have a clue where or when you decided to latch on to me, but after the kinds of days I’ve just had (espcially considering we both historically have agreed on these posts) I would like it for you to quit playing 4 year oold “Why? Why? Why?”

I agree with you! Quit pushing issues for more than they are, I’m not in the mood.


134 posted on 06/21/2007 3:19:37 PM PDT by MacDorcha (study links agenda-driven morons and junk science...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I have read that article before. It is largely based on wishful thinking and what passes for science among creation "scientists."

Under "Other Possible C14 Dating Problems" we have the following:

Coal from Russia (the "Pennsylvanian)" supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years.

This is the result of poor reading comprehension and a mistake. The original translation from the Russian intermixed "coal" and "charcoal" and that fooled Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland. They got it wrong in The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73), and creationists have been copying their mistake ever since. The mistake is in somehow getting "Pennsylvanian" and "supposedly 300 million years old" into the mix. That is found nowhere in the original date citation. I can give you the complete original text if you doubt me.

Bones of a saber-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000 to one million years old, gave dates as recent as 28,000 years.

Another creationist boo-boo. The accepted age for the LaBrea Tar Pits is from about 9,000 years to about 50,000 years. The "supposedly 100,000 to one million years" is just faulty creationist research.

Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere, have been dated by the "accelerator mass spectrometer" technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less.

These skeletons were all originally dated by the amino acid racemization method, which has been shown to be extremely inaccurate. The radiocarbon dates straightened out the dating error in the amino acid racemization method. This is just the opposite of what the article implies.

Oh, and the author also uses the global flood to account for his method of calibrating the radiocarbon method.

Sorry, I can't buy Dr. Pitman as an expert on the radiocarbon method. You better read the links I posted earlier today and learn a little more about how radiocarbon dating really works.

And leave those creationist websites alone. They are not doing science.

135 posted on 06/21/2007 4:34:53 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Is that your tactic now, ignore the body and focus on the least important part of the article (”Other Possible Carbon 14 Dating Problems”)? Do you want to focus on the “possibilities” section or the section dealing with the known science? I’m waiting...

PS Talk about quote mining!


136 posted on 06/21/2007 5:30:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Is that your tactic now, ignore the body and focus on the least important part of the article (”Other Possible Carbon 14 Dating Problems”)? Do you want to focus on the “possibilities” section or the section dealing with the known science? I’m waiting...

Those mistakes illustrate the quality of the research. Those types of mistakes, indeed some of those very same mistakes, appear in article after article written by creationists. They are supposed to show problems with the radiocarbon method, but they show the shoddy research of creation "scientists" instead.

I am working on researching more of the creationists' claims regarding radiocarbon dating, but I have some other things to do which are more important.

137 posted on 06/21/2007 5:54:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Translation: beyond nitpicking peripheral issues not central to the article, you have been stopped cold. Good luck on your “research”! LOL


138 posted on 06/21/2007 6:00:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Are science and religion compatible? Don't ask Dawkins and Hitchens, ask Isaac Newton.

And Newton, of course, had an answer: "Nature's Laws are God's Thoughts." It doesn't get any more elegant than this.

139 posted on 06/21/2007 6:03:46 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Amen to that!


140 posted on 06/21/2007 6:05:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
I don’t have a clue where or when you decided to latch on to me, but after the kinds of days I’ve just had (espcially considering we both historically have agreed on these posts) I would like it for you to quit playing 4 year oold “Why? Why? Why?”

I can't imagine how you came to believe I usually agree with you.

You have made a rather sweeping and factually incorrect statement about the limits of variation. I recommend doing some reading about directed evolution in the laboratory.

141 posted on 06/21/2007 6:26:09 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Darwin’s book is should have been named “Origin of Genus”, for that is the real debate here.

Why is that a different debate?

Do you not know the difference?

Evo's routinely offer examples of speciation as proof of Genus creation. To wit, for all of the discussion of the mutation/natural selection/evolution of bacteria, E.coli is still E.coli after all of the experiments.

142 posted on 06/21/2007 8:13:13 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

The evidence for common descent is vast and involves dozens of lines of evidence. Even young earth creationists admit that variation can produce change up to the Family level. Check out baraminology.

But I am still asking how the concept of species applies to bacteria. Such organisms routinely exchange DNA in processes that resemble sex. These exchanges are not bound by any easy rules of type or kind.


143 posted on 06/22/2007 5:42:28 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Then again, my agnostic streak says the Apocalypse is all BS anyway, so, perhpas it’s not so surprising at all.

You understand the threat of the Islamic extremists, but you don't seem to connect it to the Bible, strange indeed, you seem very analytical. Get a good commentary on Genesis, and Revelation.

The Immortal Jews (Mark Twain)

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

144 posted on 06/22/2007 9:56:59 AM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Jesus, claiming to be God in the flesh, backed his claims with miracles, and with the resurrection. However, since we can't verifiably prove this either way, it requires faith.

Even if we could verify it, and we can, it requires faith. You see faith is the beginning and knowledge is added to faith. (2 Pet 1:5 ) We should not expect faith to be added to knowledge. Even Thomas, who saw Christ and believed, had to take the promise by faith. The promise cannot be seen, but is confirmed by evidence.
145 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:31 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“You understand the threat of the Islamic extremists, but you don’t seem to connect it to the Bible, strange indeed, you seem very analytical. Get a good commentary on Genesis, and Revelation.”

I also don’t connect the threat of Islamic extremism to anything written by Nostradamus, either. Yet there are folks (some of them here, even!)who will tell you that he “predicted” 9/11, too (it must be true — after all, he wrote it down, they will tell you, and since Luke, Mark, Matthew and John wrote their stuff down, ergo it’s true, too?).

Because it’s been written down makes it strictly true, and better yet, provable? If your assumption is that it must be true because otherwise no one would bother to make the effort of writing anything then I have swampland I’d like to sell you as prime, beachfront property.

Propaganda is NOT a modern invention. The idea that the written word (reproduceable, portable) helps convey a message is NOT a modern conception. It’s fairly obvious that those who wrote the Scriptures had an agenda, and naturally, what they wrote reflected what they believed and what they wanted to influence others to believe.

THAT’S why it was written down in the first place!

The idea of the Bible as “divinely inspired”, from God’s mouth to man’s ear (and pen), is a lovely little way to dodge this question of what influence the personal beliefs and intent of the writers played in what was ultimately written. The same question could be asked about the book we’re discussing; the Bible we now hold is the final result of translation from language to language, with it’s texts carefully selected, and edited, to adhere to (often) arbitrary standards of orthodoxy (which themsleves have changed over the centuries — see Henry VIII, Pelagius, Arian and Martin Luther).


146 posted on 06/22/2007 10:18:54 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Hey Coyoteman, I emailed your post re: “Other Possible C14 Dating Problems” to Dr. Pitman. Dr. Pitman replied that you are right with regard to these common creationist references and stated that he has revised his site to make the fact that these are misquotes obvious.

Having said that, he went on to say that “These are not, however, the most fundamental problem with C14 dating. Although C14 is among the most useful and reliable of all the dating techniques, it still relies on several key assumptions. The same is true for tree ring dating. Why not ask Coyotemen to review some of the other mainstream arguments and references, such as those I’ve listed by Douglas J. Keenan?”

—GGG

147 posted on 06/22/2007 4:00:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Hey Coyoteman, I emailed your post re: “Other Possible C14 Dating Problems” to Dr. Pitman. Dr. Pitman replied that you are right with regard to these common creationist references and stated that he has revised his site to make the fact that these are misquotes obvious.

Having said that, he went on to say that “These are not, however, the most fundamental problem with C14 dating. Although C14 is among the most useful and reliable of all the dating techniques, it still relies on several key assumptions. The same is true for tree ring dating. Why not ask Coyotemen to review some of the other mainstream arguments and references, such as those I’ve listed by Douglas J. Keenan?”

It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I will continue to examine the article, but I am not willing to accept that all assumptions are unjustified, nor am I willing to accept that the assumptions used are no better than wild guesses.

This seems to be a common creation "science" tactic lately -- "Your [test, theory, etc.] is based on assumptions, so its probably wrong."

Anyway, I am glad that you got those three errors off Dr. Pitman's website. I'll see how many more I can find.

148 posted on 06/22/2007 6:37:30 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I just checked his website. I’d say he did a little more than just correct the errors:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html


149 posted on 06/22/2007 7:05:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
==It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I just checked his website. I’d say he did a little more than just correct the errors:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

He should have cited the source of the corrections. Some appear to be lifted directly from my FR post to you.

Also, I note in one of his corrections he has quoted wholesale, without attribution, from the Darwin Central blog titled "A Look at Creation “Science” — Part IV."

150 posted on 06/22/2007 7:41:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-157 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