Posted on 02/16/2010 2:33:16 AM PST by bogusname
Perhaps a fruitful avenue of inquiry would be to examine the vast neo-Darwinian literature as interconnected fragments of an Epicurean creation myth. Which is to say that critics of the neo-Darwinian creation story should be reading works by Vladimir Propp and Claude Levi-Strauss if they want to create an approach that would reach a deeper understanding of evolutionary myth (or, better, "myth cycle").
Or that aliens placed life here using that reasoning.
“Gen 1:20 And God said let the waters move and BRING FORTH the moving creature that hath life”
Intruiging.
Disprove the supernatural? Hahaha! Good one. — FRegards ....
“The absence of the sun does not preclude a light/dark cycle.”
The way I see it, ancient people looked up and saw the sun — that was the definition of day. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the days of Genisis, lacking the sun, were not actually the kind of days that ancient people could comprehend. They are a mystery.
Oh, OK. But they did prove that not all mutations are random. We are now left with non-random selection rather than random. Mutations are not always accidents. Thus, with even a slight devience to guide them over the centuries, new life forms are not accidents and not random. It’s a game changer, IMO.
Here you go Ender - to do the site justice will send you on a long bender...
Of course that’s only if you take the time to read and understand it all.
Be sure to come back when you understand how all of the evidence may truly fit together - with the God of the Bible squarely in the framework.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
BTW the author in the previous post, Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D., started out trying to prove the truth of the evolutionary science. He found that the lies were simply to big for him to keep up the facade. I highly recommend you reading about the author on the CSC homepage too.
You might be beyond me too then. =] It’s funny. I thought that critics of evolution were supposed to be knuckle-draggers, lower than Deadfish’s “F”ing [Don’t-Say]s. Hmmm ... I think some critics on this thread could hold their own against the smartest evolutionists on the planet.
Hi right back at you.
I’m glad some of my posts actually get read. It seems like the evolution threads go around in circles most of the time.
As for this article, it just reiterates the theory that life comes from hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. There is still a lot of hand-waving. The main difference between it and the soup theory is that the soup is in small pores of rocks instead of floating freely. This would mainly serve to constrict the opportunities of chemicals to react, and doesn’t address any of the criticisms that ID has brought up.
The main point going for it is that the chemicals that coat the rocks’ pores are mildly similar to cell walls. Which of course skips over the question of how you go from having a preexisting cell wall to producing your own through DNA/RNA. It’s like saying because a rock looks like a car, the car evolved from the rock.
TY for your input. Seeping pores and cells ... so what you are telling me is that I should start sweating to the Oldies.
The point I was making is that there is a tendency for certain of the science intellgentsia to jump onto some type of scientific observation and then declare...”aha God doesn’t exist..take that you small minded bible thumping bigot”. Certain skeptics, or scientist wannabe’s write books or have “debates” pushing the latest fads in atheistic
thought using info that is rapidly being discredited as shoddy or incomplete.
Real scientists employing the real scientific method and employing logic correctly could never make a claim that God exists or God doesn’t exist. Since such claims could never be falsified or tested true or false, they there-fore lie outside the realm of true scientific inquiry. The scientist, philosopher, or atheistic “debunker” that make such claims do so no out of logic but out of biased presupposition. The scientific method can never be used to support the claims of the atheist skeptic!
So to put it another way, science is about raising more questions, not about confirming beliefs.
That depends....on what the questions are? Suppose God himself came and planted himself right in the middle of a science conference. At that point, he could be observed to a certain extent, and scientists could then observe different aspects of God and form testable hypotheses concerning the nature of the many facets of God. Existence of any entity, any known reality envites inquiry...”why is this here, how did that come to be”. Yet God hasn’t chosen just yet to come to a scientific conference (though Christians do argue that God came as Man and dwelt among us for a period of time). Until he does, God is a forbidden question to science, or “to the greeks foolishness”as Paul would have argued.
God calls himself “I am that I am”, he is the “IS God” who puts the “IS” in everything that exists, indeed backstops all of matter and keeps it from flying all apart. It is said that men are made in the IMAGE OF GOD, or “I AM THAT I AM”. There-fore all humans who have uttered the phrase “I am” in a conversation proclaim witness to the author of that Image; we cannot help ourselves. Imagine then the poor atheist stuck with having to use the phrase “I AM”, not knowing that when he uses that phrase, he bears witness to the very God he would deny as non-existent!
“Suppose God himself came and planted himself right in the middle of a science conference.”
Meeting someone is not a matter of science. But if it’s generally believed that God has been somewhere recently, a true scientist would be curious about the magetic field in the room, the oxygen level, the temperature, etc.
I think I pointed out that should God have presented himself that he would have then been open game to such scientific scrutiny. Until he does, God and things supernatural can’t be dealt with thru science and assumptions of God’s nonexistence are not supportable under the scientific method. An individual may decide that for any variety of reasons God doesn’t exist, but that is a biased point of faith or “antifaith” for that individual. A scientist working ethically thru the scientific method could never make such claims!
“A scientist working ethically thru the scientific method could never make such claims!”
Not scientifically anyway. =]
FRiend, I think we see eye-to-eye on quite a bit. Science has been so politicized that apparently even scientists are forgetting the basics.
Yes...indeed!
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.