Posted on 06/13/2009 9:29:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“No, they did not attest to finding actual blood vessels, but I don’t expect you to know, nor understand the difference”
Tell me the difference - I will be glad to listen.
“I guess the only reason it would be *ouch* is from laughing so hard at the stereotypes that evos like to perpetuate in order to disparage ANY belief in God, or a creator, or anything that might give religious belief any credibility.”
I don’t disparage belief in God - and you are disingenuous to say so.
I completely disparage “creation science” - and I do so because adherents to such nonsense profess faith, yet require some sort of scientific proof - but then use false science to “create” the proof. It’s laughable. Then you show up and claim that somehow being against “creation science” is tantamount to being against belief in God.
“Creation Science” will never prove faith, because faith cannot be reduced to such quantifiable terms. I think that “creation science” is tantamount to atheism, only it’s worse. “creation science” is based on a double-lie, whereas atheism only needs one lie to exist.
So, at least be honest about what I’m saying - I never disparaged faith - only “creation science”. I know, it’s a subtlety that likely alludes most “creation science” types, but I have to try to explain it to you, even if it is an exercise in futility.
So maybe you can explain your own stereotypes about science & evolution and folks of science and faith who understand and study both - It’s clear you are capable of any serious study of either.
“Tell me the difference - I will be glad to listen.”
Start a new thread, I’ll participate. On this thread I already pointed out the difference, and you simply do not understand. Case closed, back to the subject of the thread.
“Start a new thread, I’ll participate. On this thread I already pointed out the difference, and you simply do not understand. Case closed, back to the subject of the thread.”
You have never pointed out the difference - never once. Please elucidate and show us the difference. I have a sneaking suspicion that you cannot. The only participation that you have had is ad hominem attacks on other posters. If you cannot explain the difference just say so. If you think that I just do not understand then do me a favor and explain it. Try adding some substance to your posts instead of attacks.
Given the Pope's statement on evolution, it is also a reasonable conclusion that he (Pope Benedict XVI) would be on a dangerous precipice, as defined by the author quoted in #94.
“You have never pointed out the difference - never once.”
But I have. You said the paper indicated “blood vessels” I said that it did not. I think the author would agree with me.
The reason you quote this paper is that you know it is impossible for “blood vessels” to last 80M years, and the average “creation science” believer, not being very bright, would buy into your falsehood, when no “blood vessels” were actually found.
“The only participation that you have had is ad hominem attacks on other posters.”
No I do not. This is the coin of the “creation science” realm - not being an honest pursuit, it is no wonder you accuse others of doing what is part of the essence of “creation science”.
So then I openly disagree with you and you pretend not to be engaging in the type of misrepresentation that you know full well you are engaging in. “creation science” is a double-lie, and folks who defend it, at best, simply do not know what they are defending.
Not will to judge a man and his walk with Christ - just not going there.
“It deconstructs too much of what you believe.”
No it doesn’t. It was not actual blood vessels that were found. A fossilized bone is not an actual bone either.
I’m not saying that the research isn’t interesting, or that it is without merit, I’m saying that it doesn’t say that any actual blood vessels were found, a claim you made.
You think the evidence means creation is true, I say we don’t yet understand the mechanism for preserving proteins over extended periods of time, or whatever this study claims to have found. A thinking person would want to continue researching to try to understand.
Just like he got caught quoting ICR that blood cells were found.
Unless one knows that continued research had the potential to upset hundreds of years of brainwashing.
Uh, blood vessels were not found.
Perhaps you should go back and read the article. It does not say blood vessels were found.
“Just like he got caught quoting ICR that blood cells were found”
I don’t know anything about that, but I do know that it’s easy to tell the truth, and “creation science” types seem to have difficulty in this regard. It’s no surprise.
The “Creation Scientist” has to have such weak faith that they must find some sort of evidence. With none easily forthcoming, they make it up, or leap to inappropriate conclusions.
That’s the “double lie” of “creation science”- that faith requires scientific proof, and then that when lacking such proof must be manufactured or brought to being in ways that are outside of honest scientific inquiry.
“Faith means what to you? Faith in who or what?”
One definition that is apropos could be: Faith means not having to lie about science, or folks that understand science in order to satisfy your own lack of faith in the existence of God.
How do you reconcile “creation science” and faith?
I was having an ongoing discussion with two other posters about what the author quoted in #94 meant by a "dangerous precipice". It was not about where I thought the Pope would end up... despite your bungled attempt to make it so by your spliced quote.
My suggestion would be to butt out if the topic of discussion doesn't concern you.
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.