Posted on 03/01/2009 10:55:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Depends how much carbon is in that clay or rock....
The material our flesh is made from is irrelevant, as no flesh shall enter heaven. It’s the living spirit, the life force given to the flesh by God that is what ultimately matters.
Rocks don’t have that living spirit in them, so they are not my cousin.
LoL! That song came out around the same time as “the age of Aquarius” way back in the sixties when the UN earthers began it’s “Gaea” earth worship campaign and began promoting it through the schools. Around 1967, think.
OK, I’m not sure I understand your 1st post then.
“Oh I think the chosen Daniel verse is excellent. But then Daniel gets all crazy with the end-times stuff and loses me.”
Daniel is such a great book.
“Like verses 11 & 12: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.”
So meaningful. I couldn’t possibly do it justice. I would strongly a Bible study on Daniel. Chuck Missler’s is good: http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/biblestudy/daniel/
“Daniel is probably the most interesting book of the OT, if not the bible.”
tough call!
“The Jewish version of the Apocalypse, it was written before Christ and purports to be prophetic, but forgot the part about Christ’s birth”
Christ is ALL over the OT.
“and the subsequent (much later) expansion of Christianity.”
Paul says something about that, the Church being a “mystery”. Again, a proper study would do it justice.
The disease didn’t “evolve”. It mutated. Big difference. Evolve implies improvemnt. The disease didn’t improve, it’s still a virus, it didn’t grow arms and legs, a brain or otherwise “improve”. It just mutated into different strains. Adaptation is not evolution.
Finally! Another one who "get's it." A worldview that pretends, against the weight of historic evidence, in a "uniformity of natural causes" as a Closed System. The latter is a belief, pure and simple, based upon no further evidence than a "feeling." And that makes it a religion, and as such, it mush not be promoted by the State.
A religion of non-religion is still a religion. Just as when choosing not to decide we make a choice.
Neutrality is an illusion.
I would call “greater resistance to drugs” an improvement in fitness.
That said, Doonesbury is like the comic strip included by the OP in that neither of them is really all that funny.
One of the reasons Doonesbury’s cartoon falls so flat is that it has no basis in reality.
Louis Pasteur, who also happened to be a scientist who believed in the biblical account of creation...”discovered three bacteria: staphylococcus, streptococcus and pneumococcus. He developed vaccines against chicken cholera, anthrax, swine erysipelas, and rabies. His rabies treatment was tested on a man in 1885 for the first time.”
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. I see no mention of Tuberculosis in your little tidbit on M Pasteur.
that cartoon sets up a straw man & knocks it down.
microevolution is a fact. no creationist would debate that with you. a germ can become a slightly different germ. we can breed dogs. particular traits are brought out in the DNA code. no new data is involved. you couldn’t go from a chihuahua to an alsation for instance. you’ve isolated such a small part of the DNA at that point.
to jump from that to say a banana is related to a giraffe is, well, dumb.
“to jump from that to say a banana is related to a giraffe is, well, dumb.”
And why is that? What’s to keep an enormous number of very small changes from adding up into a big one?
“you couldn’t go from a chihuahua to an alsation for instance”
indeed. because the alsation code has been lost. you could never get an alsation from breeding chihuahua together, because you have selected out an extreme portion of the dog DNA.
Not so, claim the wisemen of society, The Masters of the Universe. So I mock them with the expression. In the meantime, that ‘living spirit,’ of which they know not, goes elsewhere.
What do you mean when you say "Information" and "Code"? Do you mean the genetic code of a living being? The most concise definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states:
the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time
I fail to see what this has to do with genetic information. Perhaps you could you re-explain your position.
you seem basically honest about your understanding though (just a sunday evolutionist :).
I am an evolutionist only in that I find that modern evolutionary synthesis holds the most water when attempting to describe the diversification of life on earth. There is no feverishness on my part; no deification of Darwin. That'd be silly
there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.
Well...OK. I'd be great if you could detail some for me.
under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior. so for example, how would a thing evolve a blowhole?
evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea" (most people don't know about that part! it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features) so, at what point do you get a blow hole? You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead!
Dolphins and whales do not merely possess mammal-like features, they are mammals. They possess mammary glands as well as many other features characteristic of their land bound brethren.
Is it not possible that the nostrils migrated from the end of the snout to the top of the head?
Where did you read (or see) any biologist claiming that cetaceans "evolved from some kind of cow"?
The eye is another one, which Darwin himself admitted would be the downfall of his theory.
Really? Here are Darwin's own words:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
This seems to support your claim. But he continues:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
Which does not support your assertion. Darwin had no trouble believing that the eye could evolve from a simple bundle of light-sensitive cells to the complex biological machinery with which we are so familiar. And I agree with him.
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.