Posted on 07/25/2007 12:57:22 PM PDT by mngran
You're wrong. Darwin is not my, or anyone's "god." My posts have not been either "anti-God" or "anti-Christ." Now you appear to be confusing yourself with God or Christ. My posts are anti-presently no screen name; anti-self-righteous bullying blowhard. In my book, those are not attributes of God, Christ, or Christians.
It's always an evo that says 'you don't understand science' but it's you that doesn't understand science because evolution isn't science.
Demonstrate how the Theory of Evolution isn't science.
No matter how many times you say it - it will not EVOLVE into science.
Like I've already posted, you don't know what science is. There is no reason to take you seriously on the subject. But go ahead -- show us how the TOE isn't science.
Gumlegs: Your ideas about Christianity are repellent.
Nice try but they aren't 'my ideas'. That's dead darwins'[sic] territory - his ideas from the pit of hell. Repellent? The lights too bright for you, eh? Told you.
I'm talking about your ideas, not Christianity. Specifically, your notion that anything that conflicts with your personal view of your religion is somehow satanic is what is repellent. You just did it again.
Nonsense to you 'cause what does evil know about 'good'.
You mistake your own smugness for "good." Your casual assumption that anyone who doesn't instantly accept your pronouncements on science is somehow Satan's minion is equally obnoxious.
Gumlegs: And science doesn't need your "correction," which was the basis of my objection to your ravings in the first place.
I'm not correcting science, I'm correcting the 'wannabes', 'the impostors' trying to hide under something legit while it does it's evil deceptive work.
You're not qualified to judge what is or isn't science, and you're not qualified to decide who is or isn't a "wannabe" or an "impostor." That you would blandly assume you are somehow qualified to "correct" something you don't understand at all is hilarious.
Basically, I could care less about 'your raving objection' to Truth - it's expected of you - it's what you do.
Smug, ignorant, intolerant, and now irrelevant. Quite a combination.
What or who is standing there with a huge STOP sign preventing micro-evolution from evolving into macro-evolution?
And why are about the only folks who oppose macro-evolution creationists? The vast majority of scientists seem to have no problem with it at all.
Do creationists have some special scientific knowledge that scientists lack? Or are they trying to overrule scientific knowledge with religious belief?
Sorry, you are preaching absolute, and totally mixed, nonsense.
The fact that entropy increases in the universe does not preclude local entropy decreases, such as are exhibited by life and the change in genomes over time.
You state, "No energy, no life." Well, there is plenty of energy! Look up on a sunny day and you will see a major source of energy. But don't stare too long!
Origins are a separate problem, not of any concern to the theory of evolution.
False!
Information does not need to be "added." It only needs to be changed. That is the definition of evolution -- change in the genome through time.
No.
This is a poor explanation of the second law of thermodynamics as it relates to evolution. You could read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
but I fear your mind is made up.
Biologists don't hold that view, no. It's fairly clear that man and the apes are on the same branch of the evolutionary tree. "Man" just didn't "randomly organize".
I have never observed either. I've observed "micro-heaven" when my daughter was born. So I guess you could say that I don't believe in macro-heaven or macro-hell since I have never observed them.
Actually they describe the same phenomenon, they only differ in degree. All cell replications are subject to mutations, some the result of damaged DNA sequences, other the result of environmental stresses such as chemical, radiation, UV, heat, etc. These stimuli are called mutenogenic. By virtue in the location in the DNA sequence the changes can be insignificant and other can be very large. Most small changes are inconsequential, having no discernible affect on the organism. This is what you characterized as micro-evolution.
Most significant changes are indeed fatal to the host. However, on very rare occasions the change actually results in improving the organisms abilities to compete in an environment or adapt to a changing environment. This is what Darwin referred to as 'Survival of the Fittest". When one considers that the number of cell or organism replications can be in the hundreds of trillions over a epoch a statistically insignificant number of successful major mutations can have a very observable affect on life.
Examples of this abound. One of the first recorded was the evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light coloration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-colored trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, due to widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees which peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-colored moths, or typica, to die off due to predation.
““This interpretation is a recently developed accomodation to secular evolution.”
That’s incorrect. The interpretation is not recent, and was around well before secular evolution even became a major issue, dating back to earlier centuries.”
Evolution was widely accepted about a century before “The Origin of the Species” was published.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_1.htm
I find no mention of the Recreation Doctrine before many people started to believe that the Earth was older than Ussher’s chronology. Please help me out in finding the earlier evidence for Recreation.
“And secular evolution isn’t accommodated and dignified in any way. In fact, the interpretation counters evolutionists take on things, while not denying solid scientific facts.”
There are very few solid scientific facts when we are dealing with the past. Reconstructions of the past from current evidence is always subject to bias and human fallibility.
What used to give me the most difficulty with the recent creation interpretation was the travel time of light. Relativity came to my aid there though. Would you give me an example or two of what you were referring to when you mentioned “solid scientific facts” that aren’t denied by Recreation?
““There are many better ways to harmonize observed scientific data with the Biblical chronology than shoehorning billions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2”
It may or may not be Billions of years, but there’s nothing that states “the beginning” as being the first day. “
What does it for me is:
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.
Recreation arguments often make a hard distinction between various verba used in Genesis
If I try reading the creation account with the thought that “create” means ex-nihilo and “made” and “bring forth” means to fashion from preexisting materials that were there after everything “became” formless and void, I see all kinds of silly contradictions in the scripture.
If I read the creation account without recreation though, it hangs together pretty well.
Do you believe that ther were pre-Adamic hominids?
“What’s clear is that the Earth was “became” without form and void which was not God’s doing, because God creates things perfectly and does not create things in vain.”
Even though it’s impossible to avoid, we are on shaky ground whenever we use our sense of “rightness” and perfection to determine how things must be.
Kepler had to do battle with people who defended Copernican perfection on the basis of God’s creation being perfect and that ruled out anything other than circular orbits for the planets.
You didn’t mention Isaiah 45:18 but I suspect it was in the back of your mind when you wrote about God not creating things “without form and void”.
“Dude, that was like centuries before Hitler”
Cut that out!!
People are trying to be series here.
.
“He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
“A few weeks ago it was “Protestant churches aren’t real churches”, and now he wants us to listen to “the voice of the Earth,” whatever that is. This guy has jumped the shark.”
You’re hearing what you want to hear. There is no Catholic dogma here. You do realize that, don’t you?
You also fell into the hands of liberal MSM who are trying to divide Christians, and it worked, at least for some Christians.
As Baptist leader Dr. Richard Land put it: NEWSFLASH! The Pope is Catholic!
What part of Scripture did the Pope deny?
Tehre are people who are simply unaware that there is such a THING as poetry. They are the people who think that if Genesis says the Earth was made in six days, then all fossils must have been planted in the ground by the devil. And if the Pope says something about the “voice of the earth,” then he must be a Pagan.
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.