Posted on 07/17/2007 2:30:26 AM PDT by balch3
There are plenty of things in this life that we accept as true. Sometimes we grow out of them as we grow up, as in the case of Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and a decent postal service. As we become more aware of the world around us, then some previously accepted truths are discarded. Yet some are not and we go through life believing the same old stuff mainly because nothing else has come along to teach us otherwise. This is fine as long as there's some semblance of truth in what we're believing, but there are some things that we may have been taught that were untrue because the world has moved on and better explanations have been put forward. This can be more important than you think.
Does the term 'primal soup' stir any brain cells? It was an experiment by Stanley Miller in the 1950s that claimed to produce life out of a 'soup' of chemicals placed into a container full of gases and energised with a swift bolt of electricity. The idea was that this combination reproduced the conditions all those millions of years ago on Earth when life first appeared and the experiment attempted to do the same thing in a laboratory. Remember it now? Still believe that it's the best explanation of how life came to be? Think again.
This experiment has, for the last 20 or 30 years, been totally discredited by the scientific community, yet that little gem of information hasn't filtered through to us, or to our education system. Objections include the fact that they made wrong assumptions about the gases and the amount of electricity that would have been needed to make it work. In other words they managed to get most of the experiment wrong. Doesn't fill us with much confidence, does it? Yet some school textbooks still feature the experiment and, although others may feature it with a warning that it's not the best fit for the data, it is included because the scientists haven't found a better fit for the data and they had to provide some explanation that reflected their world view!
But there are deeper questions raised about the theory that life on Earth could have started in such a way. Such questions as where did we come from are answered these days by scientists following principles first proposed in the mid-nineteenth century by Charles Darwin under the all-encompassing umbrella of the Theory of Evolution. It has held sway ever since, with a firm grip on the hearts and minds of scientists the world over. Is that because it was a good theory? Not exactly. The problem is that it has been the only theory that science has come up with and, for many scientists, it has to be the only game in town because, for many of them, the alternative is unthinkable.
Make no mistake, despite its billing as the enemy of organised religion, for most scientists working today in a whole variety of disciplines, the Theory of Evolution has become a religious system of the highest order. With a set of dogmas firmly entrenched in the past, based around the holy book, "The Origin of the Species", Evolution is put forward as a mechanism to explain all the mysteries of life. It even has its priests, self-proclaimed spokesmen such as the biologist Richard Dawkins, to organise its worship. Dawkins has said, "it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." If that is not blind faith then I don't know what is! What it does remind you of, though, is the medieval Church, zealous to protect its dogmas by vilifying the slightest deviation from them and burning "heretics" at the stake.
A basic assumption of Evolution is that life appeared by blind chance. The usual process, as already described, is that, given a few million or billion years, a hotch-potch of chemicals, swirling away in the right atmosphere will eventually produce the simplest form of life, from which will evolve, given a few more millions of years, into simple organisms, which will, after a few more million years, modify and change, with succeeding generations, into more complex organisms, eventually producing mankind.
It's the process whereby the "primal soup", given enough time, would eventually produce little old you and me, by way of amoeba, fish, small mammals and a variety of monkeys. It has reigned supreme in the scientific and educational community. The Natural History Museum is a virtual shrine to these ideas and schoolkids are spoon-fed on evolution as the explanation of the origins of life and humankind. Yet it is only a theory and any scientist will tell you that a theory is the best fit of available facts to explain a set of phenomena.
But it has not survived the scrutiny of impartial scientific discovery. The fossil record did seem to offer proof but, despite frantic searching over the last century and a half, vital 'missing links' that bridged species such as humankind and whatever came before us, have failed to emerge. Of course there is no time here to provide a solid, comprehensively reasoned rebuttal of the theory of evolution but the point I wish to make is that, if the theory of evolution had been judged like any other scientific theory, it would have fallen apart by now, its credibility all shot through because of its shaky foundations. But it has stood firm. Why?
To answer this question, we must realise that today, the Theory of Evolution is the scientific worldview, the status quo in the classrooms, the research labs, the libraries and colleges. But the Emperor has no clothes, or, at least, they are full of holes and the one abiding reason for this is a great fear. It's a fear that 'perhaps much of what I base my life's work on is a false foundation'. It's also a fear of peer pressure, of anticipated scorn, rejection and loss of livelihood. But the fear goes deeper than that and can be explained when we consider the 'half way' house proposed by many who have openly doubted the truths of evolution. They argue the case against blind chance and instead introduce the idea of an Intelligent Designer, a controlling presence, creating and guiding life as we know it.
In July 2005 more than 400 scientists put their name to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". They have voluntarily "out-ed" themselves, they have "come out of the closet", willing to declare openly what their consciences and scientific integrity have told them is true. One man, Professor Anthony Flew, has gone further. A firm disciple of Charles Darwin for fifty years, he has done an about-turn in his twilight years. Science "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved" he says. "The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it ... it now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
The Professor is sure that there is an Intelligent Designer, but is not going any further. He stops just short of pondering metaphysical issues, but it doesn't mean we should do the same. Because, If Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution, then who on earth is this Intelligent Designer? CR
It is dangerous to make false claims that are easily verifiable... and that's the biggest bunch of revisionist bunkum I've ever read.
First, the Papacy had enormous influence over "rulers of the day." So, when, for example, Innocent III publicly ordered a crusade to exterminate the Albigensian heretics, the more pious "rulers of the day" were happy to comply.
Second, you're forgetting that the Pope himself was one of the "Rulers of the Day." Up until the unification of Italy in the late 19th century, the Pope controlled a country, the Papal States, in which the death penalty was frequently administered for heresy. One, of many possible examples: the scientist Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake by the Church, in Rome, in 1600.
Maybe you should learn a little more about what you're talking about before you go pontificating (no pun intended) to others.
Yet the theories behind evolution may be testable. The basic premise of ID - God did it - is not.
I try to.
I try not to kill, to lie etc... therefore I practice foregiveness... you know all the catchy stuff you could write on a single sheet of paper that is basic to good manners and behaviour.
But most of the bible is political - full of contradictions, written by so many people that followed so many ideas of how a scociety might work or should work -
-it’s nearly impossible not to life by it. Because it’s so wage.
And thenyou wrote:
+++ Have you quit eating meat, are you growing your own organic veggies, recycling your urine back into drinking water? Have you sold your car and stopped using electricity because YOU are destroying the earth, causing “global warming”? Have you donated money to the “save the Sahara desert” project? +++
No I am not personally recycling my urine. That’s what our cities sludge treatment is for. I do eat meat and I grow some veggies that I don’t bother to poison (an old sort of tomatoe - very tasty but with a tender skin - so it wouldn’t be marketable). I am using a car but I don ‘t posses one. Electricity is still my friend and what on earth is the sahara desert project ?
And one more question - what are these questions about ?
that’s but a nice tagline....
“The Lord works in myterious ways.”
But not really in ths case. Genesis 1 tells us how He did it, and he did not use evolution at all.
Your problem is, that scientists are human and fail ? Well that’s why science is so great - because the principle of science is, as I said, proof and verification.
Therefore a scientific hoax is quite a short lived one, whereas the pope can’t fail.
Glad you went through this POS so I didn’t have to.
What exactly is the theory of “Intelligent Designer”?
The author is a nutcase with demonstratably has ZERO knowledge or understanding of Evloution.
“The Lord works in myterious ways.”
But not really in ths case. Genesis 1 tells us how He did it, and he did not use evolution at all.
yes genesis 1..right.
stories past down from one sandle wearer to another with all of the inaccuracies of word of mouth and finally written on goat parchment for all to enjoy.
sure.
“In fact I’ll bet you can’t come up with one documented example.”
Giordano Bruno
Both are chock full of holes, yet are trumpeted as untouchable by their adherents who claim they have been settled by "scientific consensus". Unfortunately for them, the facts don't bear them out, only their own assumptions do.
It's all there in Gen. 1 eh? Only a few hundred words to describe the origin of the entire universe?
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. But Christians claim that the creation of the entire universe and all species that live in it can be described in a few hundred words.
It takes real faith to accept such a claim.
I don't mean to rub your nose in your mistake, but even a cursory investigation would have shown that you're 100% wrong.
The Papal Synod of Verona established execution by burning as the standard Papal-sanctioned punishment for heresy.
This was affirmed later by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Synod of Toulouse and was a feature of Canon Law until the formal re-codification in the early 20th century.
We both named the same case. In the event Nathan thinks this was the only case (it was most certainly not), he is welcome to examine other cases: Diego de Enzinas, Guillaume Bélibaste, Carlos Ometochtzin are three more. But there are a great many. It is unbelievably absurd to claim that the Church never ordered the execution of anybody for heresy, when burning at the stake was an official punishment for heresy in canon law for nearly a thousand years.
Idiot. Only a person who attended Iowa State would believe that a K5 red-orange giant could support lagamorphs OF ANY COLOR! Clearly (and rather obviously, I think) they are from Alpha Leporis.
I probably should have read the whole thread before I put in my two cents, but as you have stated, there are a great many well documented examples of this taking place. I was quite surprised to read Nathan’s comment.
I'd be a lot more impressed with this galoot if he actually knew what he was criticizing
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
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.