Posted on 05/06/2009 3:56:09 PM PDT by mnehring
Theistic evolution is pretty well accepted, just not necessarly by that name.
Rush does not believe in cross-species evolution. Ol’ Chrissy may be evolving a new appendage which will spring forth from the tingle running up his leg. Stay tuned! No one can explain the concept of macro-evolution, and it’s time that people who reject evolution should stop playing footsy with leftists out to ruin us on this issue. I’d demand that any interrogator explain the evolution of a spider’s web, for starters. Bob
I didn’t see Rush quibble on his “I believe in evolution” and “Certainly things evolve. There’s no question. There’s no denying it.” answer, other than saying the obvious, that evolution as a scientific theory doesn’t explain creation.
Here are Rush’s words on the subject...
“Now, had I been on the program, this is an easy answer. Matthews’ question: “You want to educate the American peep about science and its relevance. Do you believe in evolution?”
“Yeah. I believe in evolution.”
“Oh, you do? We got a Republican believes in evolution!”
“Yeah, wait, Chris! Wait, though! It can’t explain creation. I mean, we’ve got both. Where did it come from, Chris? Don’t give me the Big Bang. Don’t give me evolution for the Big Bang. Where did this all come from, what was it before it was what it is? Certainly things evolve. There’s no question. There’s no denying it. But evolution does not explain creation.”
I still say that Darwin would take a flamethrower to his papers if he ever met Chris.
Rush did not quibble when he said he believed in evolution.
How do you KNOW that Rush rejects something that you cannot even describe properly. Cross species evolution? Do you mean speciation?
And Rush reiterated that he doesn’t think evolution can explain creation in the way that Genesis does, and I agree; but he also said that evolution was a fact.
The beauty of the evolutionary system God brought into being by his will is that a single living cell need not have all information, it just need to be able to change.
DNA is incapable of remaining exactly the same from replication to replication.
Where is the evidence that randomly-changing DNA can form never-before existing organs and organisms? I’d sooner believe that the Encyclopedia Brittanica “evolved” over time. Blessings, Bob
Rush doesn't use expletives on his show.
Do you have the relevant transcript?
You do know it is a sin to bear false witness don't you?
Those that think all modern species descended from those primordial “kinds” that Noah had on the Ark believe in “cross species evolution” with a power and speed unsupportable by experimental evidence.
Nothing Rush has ever said, or that you can produce, would lead one to believe he thinks the world is only a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs lived alongside humanity.
If you have evidence to the contrary please produce it, otherwise we must go with what words he has actually said, the words which you originally tried to twist into some semblance of your own belief; but which actually say quite simply that Rush accepts the theory of evolution, thus diminishing the journalist’s point that Republicans are not wholesale rejectors of science.
I do not believe that the earth is six, or ten thousand years old. I have no problem with the idea of the universe being millions or billions of years old. I lean strongly in that direction. As for Noah, I tend to think of this story as an illustration of the importance of being faithful to God. I know this is sacrilegious to some Christians, but I don’t see these beliefs as a rejection of Christianity at all. I do believe that Noah’s story was at least *inspired* by God.
Evolutionists seize upon the unimaginable amount to time to conjure a story which only thousands of years would render implausible. But I’ll give you a quadrillion years, and I still say that the billions of positive mutations which were necessary to construct millions of life forms could not have happened. The clearly irreducible complexity of organs and organisms render any tale of random construction absurd. Blessings, Bob
So if the earth is billions of years old, and not all species existed for the entirety of that, what mechanism do you ascribe to the appearance of new species? God came down at various points in the epochs of Earth life and created them from nothing?
So you think God has no power over random processes? That God’s infinite power stops at the Casino door? That God could not or would not use random processes in nature in order that all things fulfill God’s will?
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.
Of course the fossil record reveals completed species. Every species between a toe walking animal to a three pronged hoofed animal to a fused hoof animal was a full and complete species, how could they be anything else? And yet the fossil record clearly shows that hoofed animals are a recent innovation.
Are you suggesting that fused hoof animals have been around from the beginning but nobody noticed? Or that God created fused hoofed animals from raw materials in the more recent past, rather than creating them from a three pronged hoofed animal?
AMD, there is randomness in virtually all arenas of life, but the idea that human beings and other creatures came into existence via grand accident is unsupported by science. Grandpa was NOT a protozoa, at least in *my* family tree. Blessings, Bob
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.