Skip to comments.Evolution is preposterous
Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
And, anyone who takes the Bible literally, as fact, word for word, is delusional and foolish. It is a book, written by men, containing selected stories (to push a "political" agenda - just like the NYTimes), with errors by men, additions by men, exaggerations by men, omissions by men and lies by men - just like every other book in existence.
As my Jesuit college professor taught:
"It contains TRUTH - not Facts".
When you find the actual bible that God personally wrote - you can then have a factual leg to stand on. Until then, it's just another book of good ideas - kind of like a "Hints from Heloise" - but with deeper implications.
Ann Coulter hammers the evolution theory pretty convincingly in her latest book, “GODLESS”. Give it a read.
“Yes he did! The God I know is powerful enough to do that. I have never seen anything to argue about here. Evolution was Gods plan and it is brilliant!”
Nah. What would be brilliant would be to speak every living thing/to bring about every living thing into creation at the moment of utterance/action. The ensuing (and current) debate is nothing more than a discussion of God, God’s character (in particular His omnipotence), and man’s willingness/ability to believe. Again, brilliant.
You and I are on the same page.
He'd be like "What, you think I'm so friggin' weak & stupid that I can't set up a progressive evolutionary system that will get me the results I want?. I mean, WTF?? I create and entire extra-dimensional orderly universe with billions of stars and planets and math & logic to hold it all together - with one hell of alot fewer 'bugs' than a simple Windows operating system, create life on it and watch it grow - and you think that, to achieve my goals, I had to 'zap' all these individual creatures into being like a Penn & Teller show???
Then some dumb-ass humans - who have only evolved about 25% of the way towards my final design - would rather put all of their faith in the words of some corrupt old men trying to seize money, power & control for themselves rather than look around at my creation, study it, marvel at it's complexity and try to figure it all out.
I mean, for Christ's sake - I mean 'my sons' sake, they're like teenagers who read a little Karl Marx - then go off on their little communist 'for the people' tirades - until they grow up and reality hits them in the face.
Ah, but what can I expect, they only evolved their frontal lobes a few million years ago...and I guess some of them are still nervous about actually using them
Kids, sometimes they sure are a pain in the butt."
“”What, you think I’m so friggin’ weak & stupid that I can’t set up a progressive evolutionary system that will get me the results I want?. “
It is the notion of evolution that presents a weak God. The idea that God can create completeness (total beings, creatures, worlds, physical laws, etc.) out of nothingness posits a God who is greater in strength, power, wisdom and majesty.
I might also suggest that the weaker our view of who God is has direct bearing on how we reverence Him. Today, our society talks of Him (and His Son) as if he were just another being that “evolved”, and not the One who has fashioned all things.
So what’s up with dinosaurs, anyway?
My pet chimp said the same thing just yesterday.
LOL @ defective light. Somebody’s bulb needs changing.
Exactly! How does evolution explain their appearance factually beyond all need to speculate, hypothesize, theorize, fill in a gap or two?
Your answers, like mine will involve, at some point, something along the lines, “We just don’t know definitively at this point.” (though I might use a scriptural reference along the lines, “Now, we see through a glass darkly.”)
Most evolutionists will refuse to even acknowledge the idea that the missing 10, 20, 30, 80 whatever percent they do not know/understand “yet” (they must ever insist that, like the calvary, these missing bits and pieces are on the way)—they will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that what they do not now currently possess as fact, is believed on through faith. Their system of thought requires a component of belief in what is not known, just like the religionist.
Yeah God made a mistake, erased them and accidentally left evidence of his falliability.
“...nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God. “
Incorporeal, absent, invisible, convenient, and fictional suffice for me.
God does not make mistakes, men do.
My comment was to point out that evolutionists and those that would comment on things like the appearance of dinosaurs have to, at some point, rely on a bit of theorizing, hypothesizing and, speculation about such things. You asked me about the appearance of dinosaurs and how I would explain them. Not being a scientist, I can in no way do such a thing. I can follow the scientist in his reasoning (to a certain extent, then, because my knowledge in so many of the various spheres of scientific inquiry is quite limited, I must relent. I am, however, able to reason and have come to realize that the scientist, LIKEWISE, comes to the end of his knowledge. It is at this point that, as in the case of the appearance of dinosaurs, they must hypothesize/theorize/speculate. Sometimes (most times?) these are grounded on solid reasoning. Fine. I am a believer in critical thinking skills. That doesn’t make these unknown areas FACT. Thus, what is being believed on/trusted in is ascribed to based on faith. That, by the way, is fine, too. But realize that this is what you are doing.
If you believe that science will, at the end of the day, prove all that you’ve come to believe about things like evolution and the appearance of dinosaurs, just trust to it. But don’t get upset if people choose to subscribe to different faith-based options.
well, there’s five minutes I’ll never get back. what was the point of spamming us all with that?
It’s all about creation both universe and life. Evolution is but a subset to examine life.
The most rational universal explanation is that there is a creator and that the universe and its contents were created. What other explanation comes remotely close?
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.