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

Skip to comments.

Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged
Stabroke News ^ | July 4th, 2007 | Roger Williams

Posted on 07/04/2007 5:43:27 PM PDT by balch3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 next last
To: _Jim

The point was a refutation of the claims by eagle74 that the Bible was written by primitive men who believe that demons caused illness. Science discovered the why of the hygiene laws in the Bible. Im not dismissing science only eagle74’s ignorance of what the Bible contains.


51 posted on 07/05/2007 6:53:11 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (new poster, not enough time to think up a clever tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
How can the scientific community ever hope to withstand such a terrible attack?

When will the scientific community come up with any evidence that supports evolution?

52 posted on 07/05/2007 6:56:51 AM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots

The fact is that plants (and everything else) depend on the sun because God made it that way. If He had chosen to sustain them with His Glory he certainly could have. And if they were put here for us, then what was the point of that unless we need them? Your argument contradicts itself.


53 posted on 07/05/2007 7:07:38 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (new poster, not enough time to think up a clever tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

You got it wrong: he uses logical thinking.


54 posted on 07/05/2007 7:26:54 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ndt
So what specific experiment or observation do you feel falsifies The ToE.

One thing that does it for me is the giraffe. The fossil records show no transitional ancestors. A mutation producing longer legs simultaneously with longer neck (not to mention the complex system of valves necessary for such a long neck) to appear simultaneously is extremely improbable. As for the other animals on the savannah, I find it interesting that the same "natural slection" that dictated a giraffe's neck to grow somehow didn't apply to the others.

Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine. What specific experiment or observation do you feel supports the ToE?

55 posted on 07/05/2007 7:39:53 AM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
What specific experiment or observation do you feel supports the ToE?

Try rooting around in PatrickHenry's List-O-Links (now the Un-Missing Links).

Plenty of evidence listed there.

56 posted on 07/05/2007 7:53:41 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
From your link, the confirmation of the fundamental unity of life makes a stronger case for ID than it does evolution. To state that the same construction materials were used for all life forms indicates that a creator was able to do this with a limited amount of materials just as a construction engineer can build either a house, a skyscraper, a bridge, or a road using the same basic materials. Yet suspiciously absent from your link was any indication that all life originated from some original species containing these building blocks. To state that bridges, buildings, and roads all contain the same materials does not make the case that they all evolved from a brick.

In the confirmation for a nested hierarchy of species, simply classifying life forms does not prove that they evolved from a single species no matter how you draw the tree. Suspiciously absent from this tree are the life forms that established the origin for two branches. For example, no specific species exists from which both reptiles and mammals evolved.

Your web site is beautiful and all, but it does not show that all life evolved from a single species. If anything, it sheds doubt upon it.

57 posted on 07/05/2007 8:50:27 AM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Noncence


58 posted on 07/05/2007 8:53:55 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Based on this rambling nonsense I conclude that the letter writer is somehow related to Ricky Williams.


59 posted on 07/05/2007 8:58:25 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

The real question to evolutionists is why are you an athiest? It’s not about science, it’s about defying God.


60 posted on 07/05/2007 9:04:58 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 1 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
why are you an athiest?

Real question is when did you stop beating your wife, you atheist.

61 posted on 07/05/2007 9:11:01 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and cannot be proved using the scientific method. I have my own belief system that has been developed over years.

Prove it. I have heard this lie enough recently on FR that it makes me want to cry. I'll give you a hint before you reply: look up the exact definition of entropy in a closed system and then look up the Gibbs Free Energy equation and how to solve it (hint: there is an Sint and Sext).

62 posted on 07/05/2007 9:14:11 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
"One thing that does it for me is the giraffe. The fossil records show no transitional ancestors."

Fossilization is a rare event one would not expect to find a record for every single step of every single species. While there are numerous examples of transitional fossils, as far as I know you are correct, there is no clear short necked giraffe fossils, there are however related living animals that show exactly that those retained features.



"A mutation producing longer legs simultaneously with longer neck (not to mention the complex system of valves necessary for such a long neck) to appear simultaneously is extremely improbable."

Winning the lottery is also extremely improbable, but someone does it nearly every week.

"As for the other animals on the savannah, I find it interesting that the same "natural slection" that dictated a giraffe's neck to grow somehow didn't apply to the others."

You just got done stating that the mutations were extremely improbable and now are expressing surprise that the same mutation did not occur repeatedly. That seems inconsistent.

There are numerous potential strategies for living on a savanna a long neck is just one way of taking advantage of one renounce. Elephants for example use an entirely different approach to accomplish the same task, reaching hard to get to food.

"Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine. What specific experiment or observation do you feel supports the ToE?"

It only takes a single exception to falsify a theory, but it takes a large body of evidence to support one. So I would point you to not a single observation, but the entire body geologic of fossil evidence and genetic research which is nearly unanimously accepted to support the ToE. As a start I would direct you towards a good overview of the evidence.
63 posted on 07/05/2007 9:14:22 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
"The real question to evolutionists is why are you an athiest? It’s not about science, it’s about defying God."

Personally I put my effort into defying Zeus. Do you obey Zeus?
64 posted on 07/05/2007 9:17:13 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged

No, it hasn't.
65 posted on 07/05/2007 9:23:08 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
When will the scientific community come up with any evidence that supports evolution?

Don't be fatuous.

66 posted on 07/05/2007 9:39:45 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

Logical thinking? All he says is “evolution can’t be true because some creationist wrote a book saying it isn’t.” If that’s what passes for logical thinking in your parts, you’re in a sorry state.


67 posted on 07/05/2007 9:41:50 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Logical thinking? All he says is “evolution can’t be true because some creationist wrote a book saying it isn’t.” If that’s what passes for logical thinking in your parts, you’re in a sorry state.

That's creation "science" -- the stuff they want taught in science classes.

68 posted on 07/05/2007 9:47:21 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Real question is when did you stop beating your wife, you atheist.

Interesting response. I suppose there are a few people out there that strongly believe in theistic evolution. They are an interesting breed.

69 posted on 07/05/2007 9:47:49 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 61 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Personally I put my effort into defying Zeus. Do you obey Zeus?

So are you saying the God of the bible is no better than Zeus? Sure sounds like you are helping make my point.

70 posted on 07/05/2007 9:49:35 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 64 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
"So are you saying the God of the bible is no better than Zeus? "

No, I'm asking if you obey Zeus. Is not why not?
71 posted on 07/05/2007 9:51:12 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ndt
No, I'm asking if you obey Zeus. Is not why not?

I wasn't born again by Zeus. But, when I was an atheistic evolutionist I thought that all gods were equally mythological.

72 posted on 07/05/2007 9:54:04 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 71 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
"I wasn't born again by Zeus. But, when I was an atheistic evolutionist I thought that all gods were equally mythological."

Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of answering so let me spell it out for you.

First, many of those who accept evolution are religious, so the entire premise of your claim is bogus.

Second, atheists are atheists because they don't believe that god (or other supernatural things) exist. You can not defy that which does not exist.
73 posted on 07/05/2007 10:34:32 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of answering so let me spell it out for you.

It sounds like you have a real problem with creationists when you use such terminology.

First, many of those who accept evolution are religious, so the entire premise of your claim is bogus.

Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Second, atheists are atheists because they don't believe that god (or other supernatural things) exist. You can not defy that which does not exist.

Everyone that claims not to belive in God would absolutely love to have God just stand up and proove Himself.

74 posted on 07/05/2007 10:44:02 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 73 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
"It sounds like you have a real problem with creationists when you use such terminology."

What terminology? I asked a simple yes/no question. You weaseled. It has nothing to do with crevo/evo and everything to do with character.

"Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means."

You seem to have an expansive definition of religion shared by few. Water boiling at 100C at sea level is not a religious belief, it is objective reality.

"Everyone that claims not to belive in God would absolutely love to have God just stand up and proove Himself."

No, not really. If it did I would take that into account as part of my world view, but I'm hardly looking forward to it nor expecting it in the least.
75 posted on 07/05/2007 10:51:21 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Except atheists. If you try to make the assumption that everyone is 'religious' because they are human then the term has no value and cannot be used to argue a point. The term 'religious' is useful *because* it is exclusive. Denying that exclusivity indicates that there is nothing special about the property that the term was made to describe.

This particular argument annoys me because I hear similar statements from those on the left. It sounds very much like Newspeak.

76 posted on 07/05/2007 11:10:27 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ndt

Evolution is a dead end with no explanation.

If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing. Absolutely impossible by every law of physics. If your theory has a starting point that is impossible, all that follows is impossible.

The Bible states in Psalms 19:1-3

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.....”

Those verses, composed 3,000 years ago, confirm what we know through common sense.

This earth, with its fantastic array of precision and design, declares that there is a creator. Every day and every night the things we see tell us that. And everyone on earth sees it and understands it.

The atheist says “Prove to me God exists.” I say, “Look around. God is talking to you but you aren’t listening.”


77 posted on 07/05/2007 11:44:58 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
"If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing."

Actually that pretty much sums up genesis.

"Absolutely impossible by every law of physics."

And the subsequent miracles of the Bible somehow don't violate the law of physics?

"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world...."

And yet so many creationists refuse to actually listen to the firmament and night reveal their knowledge because they are providing ample evidence of evolution.

In fact, if there is a god he must be shaking his head in disbelief that people would blindly ignore the evidence he provided in quantity despite specific admonitions to learn from it.

"This earth, with its fantastic array of precision and design, declares that there is a creator."

Well the ToE says nothing about the existence of a creator. I on the other hand see no evidence to support the existence of one.

"Every day and every night the things we see tell us that. And everyone on earth sees it and understands it."

OK, what did you see last night that told you that?

And when did I cease to be a person on earth?

"The atheist says “Prove to me God exists.” I say, “Look around. God is talking to you but you aren’t listening.”"

I'm too busy sorting the huge fossil record that he put down showing evidence of common decent.
78 posted on 07/05/2007 12:12:52 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of what happened IN the beginning. The word Genesis means IN the beginning. The second verse establishes that something happened to that creation..."

I'm continually befuddled as to why people seem to think that the first line of Genesis is an act of creation. It is not, period, and anyone who has ever taken grammar school level literature can tell you that.

But don't take my word for it, follow your own line of reasoning. If you believe that Genesis one *is* an act of creation, then not only did God create the earth in that first line, but also the heavens, and there is no indication in verse two that the heavens also needed recreation, Which means that the chronology of creation that follows, including the heavens, poses a major problem for your argument.

You have God creating the heavens twice....once in the first line, and the second in the chronology that follows.

The argument simply doesn't make sense from the point of internal consistency of the Bible itself. You may think it makes sense scientifically, but it doesn't make sense theologically.

79 posted on 07/05/2007 12:20:33 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Re: Jeremiah, chapter 4
Jeremiah is told about the destruction of this earth pre-flesh man..."

I think you're reading into the text what you want, much like Genesis.

80 posted on 07/05/2007 12:51:44 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing. Absolutely impossible by every law of physics. If your theory has a starting point that is impossible, all that follows is impossible.

Not true. The beginning is undefined. That does not mean impossible. It is wise to remember that nature doesn't obey physics. Instead physics models what we think that nature does. As a physicist I deal all the time with undefined situations. Sometimes you can use different mathematical methods to define a point which is undefined in another. A classic example is the divergence of something that is proportional to the inverse square of its displacement (written f(r)=(1/r²)*r^ or r/r³ where r^ (the ^ is supposed to be on top) is the unit vector in the direction of r). If you take the divergence of this value you will get zero, but if you use the divergence theorem (which is a surface integral around the point) you will get 4π. The problem here is that the function doesn't behave at r=0. Physicists solve this by introducing a functional called the Dirac Delta Function which assigns the zero point a value. There are tons of physical situations just like this. If you are a mathematician you will recognize that this means that physics does not live in L². Again you need to remember that physics doesn't tell nature how to work, it only describes it the best that we know how. A simpler case that is taught in introductory calculus courses is the function f(x)=sin(x)/x. At what value is this function at 0? With one mathematical method I would say that it is undefined (0/0). With another I would say that it approaches 1.

To be perfectly honest though, my divergence example wasn't undefined in the mathematical sense, it was just wrong with the assumption that it lived strictly in L² where the Dirac Delta Function cannot exist.

81 posted on 07/05/2007 12:59:00 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: burzum

So, the evolutionist bases his THEORY on Laws of Physics that he admits are not completely defined and may well be changing? A theory based on an assumption?

IF the beginning is undefined, then why is it not well within reason that a divine being created the universe?

- Evolutionists don’t know where the matter came from
- Evolutionists don’t know how old it is
- Evolutionists don’t know what state it was in before your theory starts
- Evolutionists don’t know who, how, why or when the current Laws of Physics that we rely on came into existence.
- Evolutionists don’t know if the current Laws of Physics have always been the same, and have NO WAY of knowing if they ever changed or how much they changed.

Yet, Evolutionists are telling me they know, AS FACT , what happened on earth 3 billion years ago?

I’m not a physisist. I’m an engineering technician with a healthy dose of common sense.

I have to deal in facts, standards, repeatability, reality. I look at what you just told me and conclude that you have undertaken to prove and purport as FACT a theory and are using parameters that are neither set nor completely defined.

In the engineering world, we call that GIGO.


82 posted on 07/05/2007 1:44:18 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
"So, the evolutionist bases his THEORY on Laws of Physics that he admits are not completely defined and may well be changing? A theory based on an assumption?"

You do realize that all the hard sciences work within the laws of physics. Are you really saying we should just abandon science because there might be a law of physics that is not known or is currently mistaken?

If you really believe the insanity you are spouting, then we must abandon ALL science.

"Evolutionists don’t know... Blah blah blah"

Do you realize that those items that you list are physics, geology and organic chemistry. None of them are the Theory of Evolution.

"Yet, Evolutionists are telling me they know, AS FACT , what happened on earth 3 billion years ago?"

Well since the ToE says nothing about the origin of life I can only imagine that you have no idea who you were speaking to.
83 posted on 07/05/2007 3:34:26 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
ground squirrel cools belly july 19 2005 andreas 100_0201 "Evolution ... schmevolution! I just need to cool my belly!"

(sorry folks for the poor humor ... really just a test of posting an image ... just ignore it!)

84 posted on 07/05/2007 3:44:09 PM PDT by DancesWithCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
So, the evolutionist bases his THEORY on Laws of Physics that he admits are not completely defined and may well be changing? A theory based on an assumption?

So do all a priori and most a posteriori theories. In mathematics you might assume Euclid's axioms are true. In theoretical physics you might assume that Schrödinger's Equation (or in classical mechanics, Newton's 2nd Law) is true. In both these cases you have axioms that you have to accept to be true without justification when you are doing theoretical work (though your 'secret' justification will always be a posteriori). As for a posteriori theories, you expect to get an observation of something (to confirm or reject a theory). Otherwise you wouldn't be looking.

-Evolutionists don’t know who, how, why or when the current Laws of Physics that we rely on came into existence.
- Evolutionists don’t know if the current Laws of Physics have always been the same, and have NO WAY of knowing if they ever changed or how much they changed.

Neither do physicists (except perhaps how physics has changed in the last 13 billion years). What is your point? Do you assume that scientists know everything? Did you completely miss my point where I said that physics only describes nature? Let me put it in bold so you don't forget: Physics does not tell nature what to do, it only describes it the best way we know how. Granted, theoretical physics is pretty accurate (in some cases, like quantum electrodynamics, experiments have been built to test up to 11 significant digits and yet still agree with theory). But that still does not mean that you can have insight from it.

I have to deal in facts, standards, repeatability, reality. I look at what you just told me and conclude that you have undertaken to prove and purport as FACT a theory and are using parameters that are neither set nor completely defined.

What are you talking about? Feel free to cite the relevant posting. I think intelligent design is a crackpot theory and that evolution is the more likely theory to be correct (thought they are not mutually exclusive or more importantly exclusive of other possible theories). But so far in this discussion I have only talked about the validity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in evolution and how undefined variables are common in science but still give rise to well defined situations (because science does not tell nature how to act). I don't see how you could have drawn any conclusion of my intentions from my postings. All that I did was correct fundamental errors in how two different posters (yourself included) mischaracterized science.

85 posted on 07/05/2007 4:51:49 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: burzum
Except atheists. If you try to make the assumption that everyone is 'religious' because they are human then the term has no value and cannot be used to argue a point. The term 'religious' is useful *because* it is exclusive. Denying that exclusivity indicates that there is nothing special about the property that the term was made to describe.

The importance of the term is that there is only one true God. Everyone believes either in a God or that some other thing has the qualities of God. For some it's allah for some it's time and matter and the cosmos and for some it's their Harley and lots of beer. Idolatry takes many forms but it is still religion.

86 posted on 07/06/2007 5:21:29 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 76 | View Replies]

To: ndt
If it did I would take that into account as part of my world view, but I'm hardly looking forward to it nor expecting it in the least.

Yeah I told myself that too, until He stood up and showed Himself to me.

87 posted on 07/06/2007 5:23:28 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 75 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Since Behe completely disagrees with the young-earth creationists who worship him, this isn’t a problem for him. Behe thinks that the universe is ancient and that all organisms on earth descended from one initial organism. He is essentially a theistic evolutionist who holds the additonal requirement of constant mini-miracles on God’s part to keep things going. The young earth creationists ignore these minor details because they don’t have a lot of options.


88 posted on 07/06/2007 8:51:23 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
"Yeah I told myself that too, until He stood up and showed Himself to me."

Mind if I ask how tall he was?
89 posted on 07/06/2007 10:12:32 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

“...than the distorted writings of primitive men, no matter how divinely inspired, groping for some understanding of the world around them and their existence?”
‘You deny the very Power of God with this sentence.’

No, I just recognize the flawed nature of those assembled and edited the Bible. I make no attempt to judge what God’s purpose was in the development of the Bible. I do however recognize that God gave Man a brain, and I don’t think he would have done that if he didn’t expect Man to use it to explore his creation. Those who refuse to question every thing, insult God by not using the gift he gave us.


90 posted on 07/06/2007 5:23:00 PM PDT by Eagle74 (From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

A greater understanding of the mind of God, is more likely to be achieved by the scientist studying the beauty of God’s creation
Go easy there ... mankind is likely to ‘discover’ how nature works and using those discovered laws and principles develop science and engineering disciplines and eventually build worldwide communications networks using computers and - and - ...
I seem to have lost that last thought ...

God’s gifts to those who study his creation.


91 posted on 07/06/2007 5:26:43 PM PDT by Eagle74 (From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Why must so many highly religious people always be in such conflict with Science?.....
I have NO conflict with LITERAL science, but this evolution mysticism is a load of donkey dung. Did not happen the way the religion of evolutionists claim!! As it is Written we are all made in the image of the Heavenly Father, but not all minds are in tuned with Him. This present age is by design to give opportunity for all His children to be born of woman, into a flesh going to die and return to dust body. When the flesh dies, the soul, or as Genesis calls it *breath of life* returns to the Father that sent it. As also Written not all of those sons of God were willing to go through this flesh age and they along with that one who believed in himself so much (Satan) are the only ones yet judged with a death of their “soul” sentence.

Flesh man is not going to design any methods that will make this flesh body live into eternity.

You clearly think the written word of man, as assembled in the Bible, is a better way of understanding God’s will, than the actual hand of God all around you. You call the theory of evolution donkey dung, but fail to refute any of the evidence God has placed on this Earth for mankind to find. Finally, you insult God by failing to use the Brain God gifted you with, to examine the Universe he created for us.


92 posted on 07/06/2007 5:40:53 PM PDT by Eagle74 (From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3

“You obviously havent read the book of Leviticus especially the parts about hygiene. The hygiene laws were centuries ahead of science that discovered germs. I guess the primitives just lucked up on those. Also, the Bible doesnt say the earth is flat, it makes reference to the four corners of the earth (ie north south east and west)in Revelations 7:1. Although is does specifically say that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)and hangs on nothing (Job 26:7). Be careful your biblical ignorance is showing.”

You clearly didn’t understand my post. I was trying to point out that the Bible is a much lesser source for the understanding of God, than that of actual hand of God present in the Universe all around us. I was also trying to point out that those studying the hand of God are closer to God, Holier if you will, than those whose understanding comes primarily from the Bible. Since, God place evidence of evolution on Earth for man to find, he clearly wanted us to find it. It may be that God has placed further evidence for us to find that will disprove the theory of evolution. Since God gifted us with brains he clearly wants us to explore his creation, and as our understanding of his creation grows, we can use his gifts to create cool things like TV, cars, airplanes, and computers.


93 posted on 07/06/2007 6:02:21 PM PDT by Eagle74 (From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74
You clearly think the written word of man, as assembled in the Bible, is a better way of understanding God’s will, than the actual hand of God all around you. You call the theory of evolution donkey dung, but fail to refute any of the evidence God has placed on this Earth for mankind to find. Finally, you insult God by failing to use the Brain God gifted you with, to examine the Universe he created for us.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

verse 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

verse 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.

verse 4 In Him was life; and the life was the *light* of men.

verse 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Now the brain God gifted me with draws me to study His word, which He predestined certain human beings to pen for us even to this day. What they penned does NOT disagree with the literal factual evidence. Evolution is not factual it is a hypothesis dreamed up by man, kinda like sending the universal gesture to the Heavenly Father.

94 posted on 07/06/2007 7:25:18 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

It is not factual to say the world is just 6,500 years old. The evidence against this is overwhelming.


95 posted on 07/06/2007 7:33:20 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: spyone
It is not factual to say the world is just 6,500 years old. The evidence against this is overwhelming.

I agree, we do not know how old this earth is, Peter among others says there was an earth age before this one, which was destroyed and the earth shows those scars.

96 posted on 07/06/2007 7:39:49 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74

That isnt at all what your original post said. I actually refuted some of the points you made. You cant just come back and change the argument.


97 posted on 07/07/2007 2:09:50 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (new poster, not enough time to think up a clever tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Eagle74
“...than the distorted writings of primitive men, no matter how divinely inspired,..

“NO MATTER HOW DIVINELY INSPIRED”

What do these words mean to you? Any God Who could not get his exact and precise meaning conveyed is no god. ANY distortion in the Scriptures would render them valueless. God managed to see to it that the first Book He gave the earth, The Torah, remained utterly unchanged by so much as one character for over four thousand years. It exists today in precisly the form it has always had. Four thousand years. Don't doubt the power of God.

98 posted on 07/07/2007 7:01:30 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Mind if I ask how tall he was?

How tall He was didn't seem to matter as He was nailed to a cross.

99 posted on 07/09/2007 5:11:48 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 89 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
"How tall He was didn't seem to matter as He was nailed to a cross."

Well you said he stood up and showed himself so I assume you could ballpark guess, no?
100 posted on 07/09/2007 9:39:48 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 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