Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Darwin Anniversary
CMI ^ | November 24, 2009 | Carl Wieland

Posted on 11/24/2009 9:27:06 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 last
To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

No, once you interpret that in light of what it simply says.


151 posted on 11/25/2009 10:03:35 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Science and scientists started perverting Scripture long before creationists allegedly perverted science.

Scientists have been telling Christians and creations for years how to interpret the Bible and what they think it means when it says something else.

It happened in the early 1900’s when the scientific community held to the steady state theory of the universe. They scoffed at the idea that the universe had a beginning and Einstein even fudged his relativity equations, adding his *cosmological constant* to make the equations fir the theory.

The only people who (rightly) believed that the universe had a beginning in those days, were the Bible believers, who took God at His word over the speculations of man.

And tell me, who was right? And who were the ones perverting science to try to make their point?


152 posted on 11/25/2009 10:09:12 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Then why are you promoting the lie that creationists and Christians believe and believed that the earth was flat?


153 posted on 11/25/2009 10:10:33 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

If God is omnipotent, then He could have created the Earth 6,000 years ago, together with all the material evidence pointing out to billions years of history. Why?

BECAUSE we are to walk by Faith and not by sight.

I fail to see where the Bible says that the earth is flat. In fact, since you love allegory, it specifically says that it is round. “Your sins will be cast as far as the east is from the west”. Why east-west? Because on our GLOBE there isn’t a beginning to either, and it was known then, especially to God.


154 posted on 11/25/2009 10:10:45 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“I think we are close to an amiable solution, because this is exactly what we are asking for: keep these fields (science and theology) separate.”

Why should they be kept separate? and How could they be even if that were desired?


155 posted on 11/25/2009 10:11:02 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: metmom
No, once you interpret that in light of what it simply says.

It "simply says" circle, not sphere. I'm sure you know that. They had a word for "ball" they could have used, but didn't.

156 posted on 11/25/2009 10:12:43 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Jesus invited Thomas to do so. Why are you criticizing that? Don't you like that Jesus did that?"

The answer will be quite brutal. Jesus indeed invited Thomas to do so, and for this reason Christian (especially Catholic) scientists consider Thomas their patron saint. Immediately afterwards, however, Jesus admonished Thomas:

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

So, scientists still examine things, but the general populace is just supposed to believe, because this is the MORE APPROVED way. You want to be a scientist? Fine, train, learns, and walk the thin line between reason and faith, trying not to offend either. When you offend faith, you are on your way to become an unethical scoundrel, like Dr. Mengele. If you offend reason, you are no longer a scientist, but a quack, unnecessarily sticking dirty fingers where they don't belong. This briefly sums up being a scientist AND a Christian.

157 posted on 11/25/2009 10:13:42 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

You sir, should be spreading the gospel, not discrediting our Saviors Book.


158 posted on 11/25/2009 10:17:32 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Then why are you promoting the lie that creationists and Christians believe and believed that the earth was flat?"

Because YOUR WAY of interpreting the Scripture unavoidably leads to the flatness and geocentrism. unless, of course, you cherry pick what to interpret literally, and what is allegorical, but then you would have to convincingly explain the rationale behind such cherry picking.

159 posted on 11/25/2009 10:18:02 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

And they had a word for flat that they didn’t use to describe the earth.

The flat earth argument is still and always will be a lie promoted by those with an agenda to discredit Christianity and creationists.


160 posted on 11/25/2009 10:18:09 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

That’s not an admonishment.

That’s reading more into it than it says... again.

What is it with evos that they have to constantly be adding to what Scripture says? What’s their problem with just reading it as it’s written?


161 posted on 11/25/2009 10:19:59 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat
Because YOUR WAY of interpreting the Scripture unavoidably leads to the flatness and geocentrism. unless, of course, you cherry pick what to interpret literally, and what is allegorical, but then you would have to convincingly explain the rationale behind such cherry picking.

How do you interpret it? All allegorical or all literal or do you cherry pick and do some of both?

And on what basis do you make that determination?

162 posted on 11/25/2009 10:23:03 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
BECAUSE we are to walk by Faith and not by sight.

Precisely, but please also refer to the discussion about Thomas. As for the flatness of the Earth, refer to #39.

163 posted on 11/25/2009 10:29:56 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: metmom
It's also an assumption that the ancients were such dullards that they wouldn't understand that seeing a ship drop below the horizon and seem to rise again meant the surface of the earth was curved or that the only shape that appears circular no matter the observer's location is a sphere.

These experts in linguistics just know what words should/could/would have been used.

What arrogance!

164 posted on 11/25/2009 10:39:48 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: metmom; RoadGumby
"That’s not an admonishment."

Indeed? So please refer to #154, where RoadGumby writes:

"BECAUSE we are to walk by Faith and not by sight."

So, if I am "reading more into it than it says" ten I am not alone. In fact, I am accompanied by the mainstream Christianity, which derives the preference for faith over empirical evidence precisely from John 20:25 (where Thomas demands evidence) and 20:29 (where Jesus says that blessed are those, who have not seen, yet believed).

165 posted on 11/25/2009 10:42:14 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

WHAT? Just, really, What? What? What is your point? Be precise, use sentences that put forth that which you are trying to say. What?


166 posted on 11/25/2009 10:46:02 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: metmom
" How do you interpret it? All allegorical or all literal or do you cherry pick and do some of both?"

I do not have the problem of reconciling my way of interpreting the Bible with the observed reality, so my way of interpreting the Scripture is tangential (at best) to this discussion.

167 posted on 11/25/2009 10:50:45 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat; RoadGumby; YHAOS
So, if I am "reading more into it than it says" ten I am not alone. In fact, I am accompanied by the mainstream Christianity, which derives the preference for faith over empirical evidence precisely from John 20:25 (where Thomas demands evidence) and 20:29 (where Jesus says that blessed are those, who have not seen, yet believed).

OK. Then explain to me why it is that evos brag on how much better their way is because they rely on empirical evidence that can be tested for, observed, and repeated in experiments.

Getting the popcorn ready.

168 posted on 11/25/2009 10:56:53 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: metmom

metmom, I was educated before the start of the Dept of Education. What did Behemoth try to say?


169 posted on 11/25/2009 11:01:30 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Heads I win, tails you lose.....


170 posted on 11/25/2009 11:02:54 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

And you know that your perception of *observed reality* is correct how?


171 posted on 11/25/2009 11:04:00 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
What is my point? Simply, just believe in the simple version ("God created Earth and the Man", end of story), or, if you want to be like Thomas, examine things properly, without charlatanry typical to 'creation science'.

This proper examining, unfortunately, leads to ideas like theistic evolution, but it's not my problem. I am fine with theistic evolution.

172 posted on 11/25/2009 11:12:14 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Lots of big words there. What is wrong with that first option? You seem to have a problem with the idea that we have a Creator? You rtheistic evolution is a crock.

Your theistic evolution is also misnamed, more properly, it is a-theistic. As it renders man as nothing more than an enormous ‘accident’ of nature. Hardly worthy of a theistic label at all.


173 posted on 11/25/2009 11:16:01 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And they had a word for flat that they didn’t use to describe the earth.

No, because they weren't writing a science book--their main interest wasn't in describing the shape of the earth. But when they referred to the shape of the earth in passing, they used words that implied a flat thing with edges. You have to go beyond what the Bible "simply says" to make it refer to a sphere in space.

The flat earth argument is still and always will be a lie promoted by those with an agenda to discredit Christianity and creationists.

See, here's the thing: I don't think it discredits Christianity at all that the Bible describes a flat earth. The important things to learn from Scripture have nothing to do with things like the shape of the earth, and they're no less valuable for the fact that the people who wrote them thought they were standing on a disk under a hard surface. You're the one who thinks it would somehow discredit Christianity to accept the fact that the Bible was written by people who didn't have a clear idea of the structure of the solar system.

As for discrediting creationists: I know creationists don't think the world is flat. What discredits them, in my eyes, is the way they reserve to themselves the right to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge and which ones can't.

174 posted on 11/25/2009 11:16:37 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"OK. Then explain to me why it is that evos brag on how much better their way is because they rely on empirical evidence that can be tested for, observed, and repeated in experiments."

Because we (the mankind) also want antibiotics, cancer cures, nuclear reactors, satellites and so on, and this need is well founded in "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

You can't gain this dominion by perverting science in the name of your favorite interpretation of the Bible.

175 posted on 11/25/2009 11:18:45 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
"Lots of big words there. What is wrong with that first option?"

Nothing at all. Actually, I am advocating it here. If you can't understand how an 'accidental' process can lead to order, then you have an easy option: just believe, without adding pseudo-science to the mix.

176 posted on 11/25/2009 12:05:22 PM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Your advocacy is a bit disingenuous. Creation was no ‘accident’.


177 posted on 11/25/2009 12:06:56 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
Creation of what? How about creation of a process, which uses randoms to produce orders out of chaos? Do you think such process is possible?
178 posted on 11/25/2009 12:18:42 PM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

In your case, I believe it may be possible that you came from a lower life form. I know I shouldn;t say that, but there you go.

Process? Where is the evidence of all the life forms going THROUGH that process? we / life should constantly be in the middle of that process, always in the midst of change.

No we were Created as is.


179 posted on 11/25/2009 12:21:35 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
What discredits them, in my eyes, is the way they reserve to themselves the right to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge and which ones can't.

Is that anything like evos who say that they believe God and believe in God, interpreting the creation account in light of the ToE?

If it discredits creationists to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge, why is it OK for evos to do it? Why doesn't that discredit evolutionists in your eyes, who say they believe in God?

Why the double standard, one for creationists and one for evos?

180 posted on 11/25/2009 12:34:05 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
"Where is the evidence of all the life forms going THROUGH that process?"

I know I shouldn't say, this, but only your ignorance makes you blind to the existence of this evidence. We are anatomically related to animals. We share the genetic code with them (98% with chimpanzees). On the molecular level, we even share parts of certain enzymes with bacteria. So, either we evolved (in a process designed and put in motion by God, as I believe), or God (as you seem to believe) created us like a junkyard tinkerer creates his newest masterpiece. Don't you think that Young Earth Creationists show less respect to God by claiming this "created as is"?

181 posted on 11/25/2009 12:40:56 PM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
"No, because the Word is True, as written, as communicated by God."

The Word did not come directly from God to you or me. If not for the Holy Spirit guiding the hand of man the Scripture would not have been committed to paper or translated numerous times since. Since, as you admit, man is fallible, both our transcription and our interpretation of the Word are flawed (unless, of course, you profess to be flawless in this regard).

182 posted on 11/25/2009 12:51:25 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Darwinism has long been used as a philosopical brickbat for every leftwinger running the Democrat party, because they hate what the Bible says about sin, death and hell.


183 posted on 11/25/2009 1:00:03 PM PST by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat; RoadGumby
So, either we evolved (in a process designed and put in motion by God, as I believe), or God (as you seem to believe) created us like a junkyard tinkerer creates his newest masterpiece. Don't you think that Young Earth Creationists show less respect to God by claiming this "created as is"?

Oh BARF!!

Not that tired old canard again.

Assembling something using the same parts is not a *junkyard tinkerer*. Nor is thinking that believing that God created everything *as is* is showing any disrespect to Him when He tells us in His word that that is what He did.

The typical evo portrayal of instantaneous creation as somehow beneath God or unworthy of Him, or somehow demeans Him has absolutely no basis. There is no Scriptural support for that and there is no rational support for that.

It's merely another in a long line of evo mind games trying to manipulate creationists into thinking as they do. If you can't convince them, then try to intimidate them or humiliate them. Somehow appeal to their sense of shame or fear of incurring God's disapproval for what they think so that they'll change their minds.

For all the criticism by evos of creationists that creationists claim to have in *in* on how God thinks, evos sure act like THEY do instead.

If God created animals very similar, it's proof that God didn't *create them as is* but that He used evolution instead. If God had created animals very different it would be proof that God didn't create them cause why would an intelligence creator create things so different.

The *heads I win, tails you lose* mentality which evos constantly regale creationists with is ridiculous.

The most obvious reason God would have used similar materials is twofold. One is that we share an identical environment. The other is that all life consumes other life for survival. It would make infinitely more sense that God used the same materials so that plants and animals would nourish each other instead of being inedible or nutritionally inadequate.

The only thing that shows less respect to God is the evo portrayal of Him being less than He is because He didn't do something the way they think He should have.

184 posted on 11/25/2009 1:00:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If it discredits creationists to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge, why is it OK for evos to do it? Why doesn't that discredit evolutionists in your eyes, who say they believe in God?

Why the double standard, one for creationists and one for evos?

It's not a double standard. It's not the deciding which passages to interpret that discredits creationists, it's then turning around and telling everyone else "My interpretations are just what the Bible obviously means, but your interpretations are going to send you to hell." As far as I know, evos who believe in God are all for intepreting passages in light of current knowledge.

185 posted on 11/25/2009 1:36:47 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"The *heads I win, tails you lose* " - well, it simply reflects the fact that our vision of the reality is self consistent. From whatever end you try, it's always possible to support evolutionary biology. Can't say the same about your delusions, based largely on a blessed ignorance of quite elementary facts from various disciplines of natural sciences. Not even interpretations. Just plain facts.

Also, (1) We definitely do not share the same environment with whales, for example. Yet the similarities exist and they suggest something. (2) The preservation of a particular sequence of amino acids has NOTHING to do with the nutritional value of a protein or lack of it. The preservation of this sequence, however, implies a relationship.

186 posted on 11/25/2009 1:52:28 PM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

I got as far as the first sentence....the first untruth.

NOT ONCE have I said or limited in any way what people can or can not say here.

First sentence contains an untruth, the rest cannot be much better.


187 posted on 11/25/2009 2:08:06 PM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I do not pervert your theology in ANY MANNER (untruth #). I will, however, laugh at the notion of Man living with 100+ species of meat eatting dinosaurs.

Cry me a river...


188 posted on 11/25/2009 2:10:53 PM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
It is possible to comment without being derisive

Oh, brother.

PKB, Dude, BIG time:

LINK

In your case, I believe it may be possible that you came from a lower life form.

LINK

Lots of big words there.

LINK

metmom, I was educated before the start of the Dept of Education. What did Behemoth try to say?

LINK

Can anyone on this forum, subscribing to the evo standpoint READ?

LINK (this same message!)

I’ll type slow so you can follow...

LINK

In order to determine the meaning of those words, it helps not to have a ‘skull full of mush’

LINK

Did you seriously just ask such an anile question?

...and those are from today only.

Really, if you want to be a bit acerbic, it doesn't bother me. But to be as derisive as any other user, and then turn around and lecture others on the subject -- IOW, to be an offender, a hypocrite and a whiner -- is irritating. (Well, the whining is irritating. The hypocrisy is actually kinda funny.)

189 posted on 11/25/2009 6:38:35 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks for the ping!


190 posted on 11/25/2009 9:54:05 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
I will, however, laugh at the notion of Man living with 100+ species of meat eatting dinosaurs.

Fine. Laugh.

Man lives with many varieties of meat eating carnivores. Shouldn't we laugh at that idea, too?

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence.

191 posted on 11/26/2009 5:17:47 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Yeah, you show me ONE 50 foot long, 10 ton man eater Man lives with.

...because Man lives with lions and tigers and bears, does not mean Man lives with large meat eating dinosaurs.

Care to quote the part of the Bible where the dinosaurs were somehow left behind when the Flood hit?


192 posted on 11/26/2009 5:54:13 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Agamemnon, wacha been drinking?


193 posted on 11/30/2009 8:07:23 PM PST by Doctor Don
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Don
I have stood on Darwin’s grave in Westminster Abbey. RIP pagan Darwin!

It appears you and I have to a degree shared the same experience.

194 posted on 12/01/2009 8:36:57 AM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson