Posted on 09/01/2008 12:21:56 PM PDT by Forscher
>>
The TOE has nothing to do with the origins of life. Nothing at all. It doesn’t “beg” any such thing. One could very easily argue that astronomy and physics “beg” the origin of life a heck of lot more than the TOE. <<
Evolution AKA Developmental Biology does not depend on the origin of first life... but it would be a rare person who has studied Evolution and not wondered about the origin of first life.
The genome hardly accounts for the origins as described by the Big Bang, but until one comes to understand a framework of truth, even this will be veiled from their eyes.
Sorry, you are wrong again! That's the third time in a row.
The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. None of the origin ideas have anything to do with the theory of evolution.
(Unless you're doing creation "science," whereby evolution is any science that creationists disagree with.)
Non sequitur.
Evolution does not deal with scripture at all.
But that is precisely the point. Nor does it consider the hypothesis that a Creator exists. Therefore, as Cvengr wrote, "Evolution approaches Scripture from a point of view that that there really isn’t a Creature - Creator distinction." QED.
The big bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. None of the origin ideas have anything to do with the theory of evolution.
If science were as true, then TOE would also fit with the Big Bang as they both are purported by science to be true.
Since they are unrelatable to one another from your assertions, they hardly can compete with Scriptural truth as foundations of scientific truth.
Since they are unrelatable to one another from your assertions, they hardly can compete with Scriptural truth as foundations of scientific truth.
Sorry to have to tell you this, and because this is the Religion Forum I'll put it as gently as I can.
You're don't have a clue about science or how it operates.
On the contrary, your devotion to science promotes a search for de novo schema at best, but it ignore ex nihilo systems.
The ignorant sloppy scientist who attempts to use mechanistic devotion of displaying plausible hypotheses, all too frequently slips into asserting unproven general statements which contradict ex nihilo created systems and fails to grasp their revelation avaiable to those with simple faith alone in Christ alone.
This doesn’t diminish the proper value of sound science which has its well deserved place and stature, but also doesn’t seek to use science as an ignorant counterfeit for those things outside its grasp.
And how would you TEST for a creator? thus far, there is no evidence aside what randomness bounces back and forth inside certain people's heads that is occassionaly misinterpreted to be thought.
Exactly. All legitimate science throughout history has reinforced the literal truth of the Bible, from the first words of Genesis to the last words of Revelation, despite the futile attempts of evolutionists to cast doubt on it.
Evolutionists should look back on the Christian origins of science and stop burning their bridges.
What do you find fallacious in the de novo / ex nihilo problem?
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.