Posted on 01/15/2014 8:57:46 AM PST by xzins
Roger that:
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
“That is how science works - constantly testing to determine if a theory is correct or not.”
That’s how science is supposed to work, but it is not always how it works in the real world. Often, orthodoxy can set it and scientists will actively resist any attempts to challenge established theories.
Y’know, there was a time when people would say (just as seriously as you did) that the idea that lightening/earthquakes/tsunami’s/comets/eclipses/droughts/ floods/etc.,etc., etc. (insert as appropriate) happen by accident is proof that people will believe whatever they want to believe no matter how ridiculous.
No, I’ve not been there yet.
Not sure if you caught this, but Ken Ham has scheduled a debate with Bill Nye in February.
Bill Nye has no idea what he is in for.
BTW, I love this street “apologetics” at the reason rally a few years ago.
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U
Yes I am aware of those verses. I studied Romans with BSF for months (no intention to act like I know that much - but I did study it). Yes those verses deal with man, sin and death but says nothing about animals. Before adam there was no man so yes death of man started with adam. Focus of Romans is on people and not animals.
I was just responding to the comment that death in general did not exist before adam. I expect we will all learn in more detail when we get to Heaven. Cheers.
“Yes those verses deal with man, sin and death but says nothing about animals.”
Do animals live in a different world from men?
It always has been.
Still,.....
ping
That became so obviously untenable that they discarded it, and then pretended it was never said by them in the first place.
Unfortunately for them, too many people have better memories than they could wish for and too many people just have too much plain common sense to fall for their trying to divorce it.
Thanks for posting that.
Berlinski is brilliant.
It’s sad that very few take the time to read his work.
Much less understand it.
Some of the oldest books of the bible reference the “roundness” of the earth before the means to verify or even know this fact existed.
Job 26:10, Isaiah 40:22
The Ham/Nye debate should be interesting. Hopefully they’ll have a fair moderator, one that won’t openly side with Nye and give him unfair advantage. A straight-up debate, in other words.
Atheism is foundationally illogical. At its base, they’d have to be God Himself, able to be everywhere in the universe (and outside the universe) simultaneously, to be able to prove their belief that there is no God. Otherwise they’re just making a statement of faith.
Agnostics are at least logical enough to say they don’t know. Still illogical, but not in the same time zone as atheists.
No. Those verses deal wih man not plants and animals. But feel free to interpret it as you wish. :-)
The upcoming debate will certainly be interesting.
I’ve watched dozens and dozens of these types of debates over the years. William Lane Craig seems happy to debate in a moderated structure that doesn’t allow for either party to acquiesce to the others points.
This, in my opinion, is fruitless.
Two points of view that are talking past each other with the hope to influence the viewer, not their opponent.
There were some very engaging debates that followed a different format. I recall Phillip Johnson and a few others that had the opportunity to “pin down” their counterparts.
If neither side can agree on a starting point of understanding, then both sides are spinning their wheels.
Well, seeing as the verses say that death entered the world after Adam, I don’t see another reasonable way of interpreting them to exclude plants and animals, unless you can establish that plants and animals live in a different world from men.
1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the "anthropocentric" view that humans are unique and special.2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.
3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one "can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones."
4. Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.
5. Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, "[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."
6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
- Richard Wiekart
The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called ethical principles. The question is not whether biologyspecifically, our evolutionis connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible.Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in Gods will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeths dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
- Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, The Evolution of Ethics
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you wont find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist.
2) No life after death exists.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists.
5) Human free will is nonexistent.
- William Provine (from Darwin Day speech)
Consider this, to remove any creator from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any thought or intelligence from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
Great post.
I will continue on my assertion that modern efforts are centered on an embrace of uncertainty.
This is where the battle is being fought.
It is, IMHO, coming to a head.
I’m an intelligent design creationist, and I think time was one of the parts of creation. Time changes depending on speed, if I understand correctly, the passage of time at a stationary point is different than with an object traveling at a high rate of speed. The passage of time depends on whether the observer is the one traveling, the one being stationary, or the Creator who is outside of time.
Obviously, great variety is built into the DNA code of any species, so you get Great Danes and Chihuahuas. Adaptation to environment over time makes sense to me as well as an average advantage being replicated over time.
How many generations died from "random mutations" ? Your comment implies that those "Mutations" had a purpose. Without purpose, and given the survival rate of random mutations, the math simple doesn't work.
I’m not talking about mutations. As you can see from my comment, I was talking about variability already built into the DNA....thus, great danes and Chihuahua comment.
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.