Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[[So in a sense, it is not necessary for God to create each and every individual snowflake, but the design allows for a tremendous latitude for variety within that framework. The water molecules are working the way they were designed to, which in no way demonstrates that God is not needed nor that God didn’t design it.]]
That’s a favorite retread argument for macroevolutionists- claimign static assemblies which follow basic geometric rules somehow equates to dynamic living systems- if simple chemicals can assemble themselves into simple basic geometric patterns, then the macroevolutionist thinks highly complex living systems could somehow pull off hte biologically impossible, and do the same- this isn’t true of course, as there are far more complex variables found in dynamic biological systems than are found in static non living chemical assemblies- it’s an argument from similarity, which when examined closely and indepth, falls apart at hte seams
You don’t know much about the infantry, REMF.
They teach you how to whine like that in the USMC??
“They started it!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......”
When I worked in the ER in the Air Force it was a commonly held belief that anyone that worked in mental health had to have some kind of mental illness themselves.
I’d liek to also point out that the macroevolutionist- ‘long ages’ advocates are tryign to have their cake and eat it to inthat they argue that ‘the light’ in Genesis didn’t man the creation of the sun, and therefore means that Christians can’t use the sun when describing day and night as meaning 1 literal day- HOWEVER- and take note of htis VERY important fact- IF God didn’t create the sun until AFTER He created plants, animals etc- then nothign would have survived on earth for hte ‘long ages’ while everythign suppsoedly morphed into everythign we nkow today from simple chemicals. The Macroevolutionist argues that simple single celled creatures began life in the sea, using what, and surviving how again? Oh, that’s right- Photosynthesis for billions of years while they slowly worked their way up the evolutionary tree to eventually become rocket scientists- The ‘old earth’ advocates who claim to bleeive the bible attempt ot pull a fast one by tellign the YEC’er that he can’t use the creation of the sun as meaning a literal day/night cycle because the ‘sun wasn’t created until 1/2 through the creation week- then the OEC’er turns right aroudn and claims life sprang up for billions of years beginnign with simpel cells (which coincidently REQUIRE sunlight), and that God ‘used evolution’ by ‘commanding hte earth to’ (apparently) ‘Create plants and trees’ (how the earth managed to organize and construct such complex assemblies, we’ll never know I guess- We’ll just have to have tremendous faith that hte earth was somehow capable at ‘some point in the past’ I guess) withoput htere beign any source of sunlight yet?
You’d think this woukld ‘be devestating for OEC’ers claims’ but When the bible isn’t an actual source of TRUTH to them, anythign goes, and hte old ‘Well we just haven’t discovered the mechanisms yet’ answer will pop out.
The OEC’er MUST again, throw out, ignore, and rearrange to suit hteir tastes, huge chunks of God’s word (But incredibly, they turn right around and use portions of His word, and claim to beleive in God while at hte same time denying the bible IS His word) They are a woefully confussed lot it seems
There have been threads on that very topic, about men who've questioned that and allowed for the role of God in creation, or at least declined to answer where they stand on the God creating the universe and life, and there have been calls for their heads.
And you don't consider that fanaticism?
Apparently, neither is algore's hot air cult.
There have been threads on that very topic, about men who've questioned that and allowed for the role of God in creation, or at least declined to answer where they stand on the God creating the universe and life, and there have been calls for their heads.
And you don't consider that fanaticism?
Apparently, neither is algore's hot air cult.
Are you talking about the lies in Ben Stein's movie? Like the guy who didn't get tenure because his academic output dropped through the floor, but he pulled the ID card in his defense? That's the ID card, just like the race card Jackson and Sharpton like to pull.
I don't believe I'm having to defend this. Boys do give a different experience that I wanted. Not better or worse, just different. It has nothing to do with the old "I need a male heir" garbage. I could care less about that.
It isn't rejected, it's dismissed. I don't even think liberals read at all...they just whine about religious attacks on science whenever their cult is threatened and think that is peer review.
There you go with personal attacks again, if it doesn't agree with your religion then it must be liberal.
Ummm this is Free Republic, it's not a "personal attack" to expose liberalism. All your discomforts aside... And evolution, which views any and all dissent as a religious attack on science, is unquestionably liberalism.
I know it was a test trial. So was Dover.
Bible Manipulation 101 (How to make hte bible conform to an a priori hypothesis in 10 easy steps):
Take the word Yom: Insist that it can only mean a literal 24 hour cycle AFTER God Creates the Sun and Moon- Insist that, despite hte fact that it’s used qualifiers like ‘day and night’, it must mean ‘long ages BEFORE God created the sun and moon
Take the Phrase “and hte earth brought forth grass...” and insist this is proof for evolution (Not sure if the OEC’er thinks the earth did the creating, or if life just sprung forth ‘in hte ground over long ages of evolution)
But Woops- there’s a problem- life needs sunlight IF it’s goign to survive for ‘long ages’-
Concede this problem, and simpyl move the ‘long ages’ back another literal day in the creation week and insist that ‘Yom’ must mean ‘long ages’ BEFORE the creation of the plants and trees and Herbs bearign fruit and seeds in maturity on the literal 24 hour creation day spoken of i nthe bible.
When it is mentioned that life began on a literal 24 hour cycle, and couldn’t have survived without hte sun, and that God created the actual sun and moon AFTER the DAY that He created living structures like grasses and trees and herbs, just shrug and say ‘We don’t have all the answers yet, but ‘Yom’ still can mean ‘long ages’, and declare evolution as a fact despite a lack of both scientific and biblical support- and ignore this fact, and still insist on claiming that the bible supports evolution.
Dontchaknow? If a Creationist or ID scientist is denied tenure, then everythign they have ever said, or ever wil lsay must therefore be a lie? Silly you- Someone who isn’t awarded tenure can NEVEr EVER under any circumstances present truth apparently- (although those makign that silly claim show hte weakness of hteir position- but are just too blind to see it apparently- Attack the messenger- attack their credentials, and insist that unless they are mainstream- that htey couldn’t possibly have anythign of scientific value ot present- Gee- what a powerful coutner-argument put forth by some on htis thread- but it’s typical anti-Christian/creation tactics- throwing spitwads because they’re out of ammo)
How dare you mention that blasphemous cult here.
How about a sharp blow to the head? Can that make someone an atheist?
In the meaning of getting knocked into your senses, maybe. In the sense of brain damage, that may "cure" an atheist.
Since we are not friends, you don’t need to send me your portrait and family logo..
Spell check is our friend.......
Apparently personal insults are your conjoined twin
Yes, but not everyone who disagrees with other people's 'interpretation' of Bible Verse that the Earth is 6000 years old, is a God-denying evo-atheist.
There you go again with the liberal thing. I'm sure many are simply dismissed. After 500th paper comes out showing how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics invalidates evolution they kind of get tired of playing whack-a-mole with disproved arguments. You did it to yourselves.
And evolution, which views any and all dissent as a religious attack on science, is unquestionably liberalism.
I can't even fathom the logic on that one.
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.