Posted on 09/26/2009 10:23:13 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A landmark book about intelligent design has hit the bookstore shelves. I’ll tell you about it.
In recent years, there have been several important books about intelligent design that go to the debate about evolution and the origins of life. Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference was first. Then along came Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, showing the irreducible complexity of the cell, which casts grave doubts on Darwinian evolution as an explanation for life and higher life forms.
Now we’ve got Signature in the Cell by the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.
I’m going to warn you up front: Signature in the Cell is not light reading. If you are not conversant in molecular biology, you might feel a bit overwhelmed at times.
But this is a profound, hugely important book for anybody interested in the scientific debate of our times—the origins of life. I feel it’s so important that we have posted an excerpt of the book at our website, BreakPoint.org, along with links to materials that will help you understand the main points of Signature in the Cell....
(Excerpt) Read more at breakpoint.org ...
They're not illiterate. They just can't keep a grip on a pen.
Gotta scoot for awhile.
I’ll check back on your responses later.
Thanks for the comments so far.
I have enjoyed our conversations.
OK, I see conflict. Earlier you stated:
Same way humans have created everything non-natural thing that exists on this planet.
So now you assert that human-made dams can be natural?
How about houses? Chevy trucks?
Bees and beavers use different materials to achieve their goals.
So does man. I don't see a huge difference.
If a beaver makes a dam is it natural?
Isn't man part of nature?
As have I.
A rare example of how discussion on this type of thread can be conducted.
read it...teach it!
NO, the fact is that you cannot use the Scientific Method to prove that the Scientific Method is the only true source of knowledge. It is necessary to resort to other means to do so, which immediately defeats the premise that the Scientific Method is the only true source of knowledge. Your argument is self-defeating!
Who claimed that?
Turn it around and look at it.
you cannot use faith to prove that faith is the only true source of knowledge
Ponder that a moment.
Well put. I’m sure we’d disagree on certain details, but I concur with your more figurative interpertation of Genesis.
I saw it too.
But, as I said, I had to leave for a while.
(And you're just being difficult!)
Anyway, I saw that the use of the word 'natural' was going to end up being a problem. Using the word 'natural' to make my argument was about as fruitless as using the word 'evolution' to describe the advancement of life on Earth.
Bees make honeycomb structures. They always make the same pattern. They do not know how to make anything any different.
Beavers cut down trees and use them to make dams. They use the same process, and make the same type of structure. They do not know how to make anything any different.
Humans have made dams out of Earth, and out of cement and iron.
Should we discover or make a more durable material, we will use it. Because we can.
That is the difference.
If we are going to try to use a literal interpretation of Genesis, we must include the following:
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that each of the ‘days’ of creation, were consecutive days.
You’re not the first in proposing punctuated creation relying upon the day/age meaning of “yom.”
You are correct that there is no specific mention of Creation days being consecutive. All it says is that the evening and the morning were the first day, the evening and the morning were the second day, and so on.
That tends to preclude anything other than a 24 hour period, and consecutive numbering of days, with evening of the following day following morning of the preceding day, more than just implies that the days were consecutive.
Noone said that faith was the only source of knowledge. We believe in using the Scientific Method, as much as the next man. But, we also assert that it is not the sole source of knowledge...particularly knowledge of that which is beyond the purely material.
Makes the binomial origins of the computer look like child's play.
Your on, and welcome aboard the HMS Creation!
I will refer to your own statement.
“A god that was and is all-powerful and existing outside of time,...”
Surely a god that could do that, could expend one day, then allow millenia to pass before expending the next day, and so on.
Certainly, He could.
But then, when one refers back to the Bible, we see that the evening and the morning were the first day, followed by the evening and the morning of the second day, and so on. Light as “day” and darkness as “night” were defined.
So, that argument is thrown back upon itself.
But what do you make of the fact that the sun was not created until the fourth day? Plants and trees and vegetation, all needing sunlight for photosynthesis, were created on the third day.
It seems to me that if the days were ages, the green stuff would have died long before the sun came along during the Day 4 age.
What say ye?
There are all manner of problems for the notion of punctuated creation, and you point out another of those problems.
If there is an easier to understand problem with it, I’d like to know about it, as it would help during discussions with some non-creationists.
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.