Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
He should donate the extra thumb to the Temple of Darwin. The Evos will probably conclude that three thumbs are the wave of the future.
Evolutionists are always trying to have their cake and eat too. They can't disprove God by science, so if they really wanted logic to guide them, they could at least step into the realm of philosophy where such discussions are appropriate.
Do you understand thermodynamics and entropy?
Weakness in faith? The idea that God doesn't need the ugly process of evolution to create a beautiful universe is a stronger faith in a more powerful God who is more involved with His creation.
Yes, perhaps they have grown tired of defending the irrelevant point of how Darwin felt God wouldn’t have created life the way we find it.
This is fun, but we’re obviously not going to come to an agreement. You want to take the Bible as inerrant and literally true, word for word. Fine, that’s your choice. However, the Bible has been translated, re-translated, added to and subtracted from for millennia. The words that you cling to as factually infallible today may not even have existed in a version of the same book that was published 500 years ago. Christians can determine what is factual and what is allegorical given the history of the book and the context that modern science provides.
God gave us magnificent brains and the ability to solve puzzles. He would be sorely disappointed if we didn’t use those brains to figure out how he got us here. Christians of my perspective and outlook are clearly correct on this issue.
“They can’t disprove God by science...”
They’re not trying to. You’re projecting the weakness of your own faith.
If you are trying to claim that God is too weak to preserve His Word in tact the way He claimed He would, then we are talking about 2 different Gods here. So yes, you are trying to disprove a strong God with your weak god based on the scientific method. Too bad for you however, because science has no place in disproving the spiritual realm. You are better of trying your hand at philosophical reasoning rather than science to do that.
Okay, treating that as a serious question: Because the colors are jumbled in no pattern before you start. But if that's your analogy for the condition of the bacteria before the citrate mutation, in what sense was there "information" present before? Jumbled tiles in no pattern do not carry information.
A perfectly fine answer for some people, I suppose. But for me, I'm happy there are others who don't stop at "it was the right answer for reasons we will never know." I'm glad some people keep trying to figure out why things fall, why some people get sick and some don't, why some buildings stay up and some collapse, etc.
For all the whining about how creationists are making the conservative movement look bad, it doesn't help when you spread lies about creationists.
It's liberals who are on a mission to make creationists look bad to turn people away from conservatism and creationism by misrepresenting them to the general public.
One doesn't have to be a creationist to believe in UFO's and I've never met anyone who really believes in geocentrism (solar system model) or that Jesus rode on a dinosaur.
As far as the HIV/AIDS connection, the guy that started the *HIV-AIDS* denial is one of the foremost microbiologists of our time- a scientist. Imagine that. Unsupportable beliefs? What a crock.
The only unsupportable belief is that creationists *invariably* believe stuff like that. Some stats would be nice. Do you have any to support your misrepresentations of creationists?
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The evo side has people like Dawkins representing them. That shining example of idiocy himself is just what evolutionists claim is representative of what evolution can bring forth.
It usually amounts to what parts that support or disagree with their belief system. It's far more comfortable to adjust Scripture to fit your beliefs than to adjust your beliefs to fit Scripture.
Most peer-reviewed scientific journals, for starters.
ROTFLMBO!!!!
From the same kind of *objective* people who can someone from a job if they don't tow the line?
The basic answer is no. The normal English term for mutation is “birth defect”.
==I have long maintained that if you look at the belief set of creationists they will almost invariably also believe in many other equally unsupportable beliefs (UFO’s, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc).
Actually, a poll published in late 2008 demonstrates that conservative, traditionalist Christians (the majority of whom believe in young earth creationism) are the least likely to believe in UFO’s, bigfoot, the paranormal and the ocult. For instance, the Gallop Organization asked Americans the following questions:
“Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?”
31% of the people who NEVER worship expressed a strong belief in these things, whereas only 8% of those who worship MORE than once per week expressed a strong belief in the same.
The Wall Street Journal wrote an article on the study and concluded that:
“Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.”
Indeed, the article goes on: “a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.”
Needless to say, the vast majority of those born again Christian college students are young earth creationists.
The Wall Street Journal article concludes:
Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can’t see things as they are.”
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122178219865054585-lMyQjAxMDI4MjIxMDcyODAyWj.html
You should seek out some education on this subject about Biblical translation.
Did the zero tell you to say that...it's funny because I actually have a "bitter clinger" bumper sticker on my car!
Who asserted anything at all about stopping? Or any of your other strawmen?
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.