Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life (Darwin's epic failure re: comprehensive ToE)
CMI ^ | November 12, 2009 | David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati and Don Batten

Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last
To: metmom
"But recognizing and pointing out that something doesn’t line up with Scripture is necessary"

Why don't you guys do it consistently? Point out, please, to passages suggesting flatness of the Earth or the Earth being the center of the Universe (if read literally), and to the fact that contemporary astronomy and geography seem not to line up with Scripture.

Been there, discussed it on FR, and to my great amusement the YECs suddenly knew the words "poetic" and "allegorical".

151 posted on 11/13/2009 10:57:18 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
I will wait and see if science eventually finds these mutations also cause problems rather than improving the DNA code.

Who said anything about "improving the genetic code? This shows a lack of understanding of genetics and population biology. Beneficial mutations are only beneficial for a set of circumstances. Change the circumstances and anything can happen. There is no perfect genetic coee by which the code is striving to reach.This is not a problem for me, too bad it seems to be a stumbling block for you.

It's a problem for anyone that thinks that Man walked the earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.

Are you not aware that since the fall, mankind has and still does survive in spite of meat-eating animals [some are even bigger than us] and poisonous plants?

I am unaware of something called "the fall" ever actually happening. Go on and compare 100+ large species of meat eating dinosaurs with possible predators of today. Lions are not Tyrannosaurus rex or any of the other 100+. You think T. rex ever feared this Man he lived with? Just....wow.....it gets even better.

152 posted on 11/13/2009 11:33:02 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
"Beneficial mutations are only beneficial for a set of circumstances."

Precisely. E.g. the skin pigmentation. White skin is an evolutionary adaptation to living at higher latitudes, where people with darker complexion suffer from vitamin D deficiency. But under different circumstances this mutation, beneficial in Northern Europe, can become detrimental (too much sunshine, skin cancer).

153 posted on 11/13/2009 11:45:45 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You simplistic rendering of something that God describes as *windows of heaven* does nothing to weaken the integrity and truthfulness of Scripture.

Of course not. I'm not trying to weaken the truthfulness of Scripture. I'm trying to show that your standard for what "truth" entails is malleable.

Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don't fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend?

Pretty much how I feel about the Creation account.

I think it’s actual *windows* (floodgates) of heaven but it’s better to use the definition than a Hebrew word that nobody can translate.

As far as I know, the Hebrew word in all its senses refers to openings in a physical barrier. If you don't think there was a real physical barrier with gates/windows/whatever that were opened to let the water through, then you must think the Bible has lies in it. Do you in fact believe there was once a physical barrier in the sky with openings to let water through?

Jesus gives us criteria by which to determine if someone is a follower of His.

I think He told us the criteria He'd be using to determine that. I think He explicitly told us not to try to make that determination ourselves.

But recognizing and pointing out that something doesn’t line up with Scripture is necessary, otherwise there would be no way for people on the wrong path to find out.

Pointing out your disagreement with their interpretation is one thing. Labeling them "not a true Christian" is quite another.

154 posted on 11/13/2009 12:19:13 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: namvolunteer
What you're talking about is the complete misuse of an idea.

Eugenics, master-race idiots, atrocious social programmers of one sort or another have been around for much longer than the ToE....and ya don't need the ToE to behave as such. A simple understanding of genetics that even wild animals understand would suffice. In MY family's ancient history, they would move into a new settlement, kill all the men, rape all the women, burn all evidence of the other family and claim all as their own.....a means of ensuring the population was all "them"...and the expansion of their world.

I do not blame the inventor of gun powder for all the current deaths by firearm in inner-city America any more than Darwin gets the blame for atrocities of those that might have taken his idea and perverted it for their own maniacal needs.

Welcome to the site....

155 posted on 11/13/2009 12:32:03 PM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; metmom
As far as I know, the Hebrew word in all its senses refers to openings in a physical barrier. If you don't think there was a real physical barrier with gates/windows/whatever that were opened to let the water through, then you must think the Bible has lies in it. Do you in fact believe there was once a physical barrier in the sky with openings to let water through?

What about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud? Do they not constitute some kind of “real physical barrier?” Are both not filled with material composed largely of water mixed with dust (plus metals, and rocks)? For those large and small comets, and the water they hold, to escape their barrier, does not someone/something have to open a gate/window/whatever? Would anyone prior to the last century have understood what The Bible meant by the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud? Certainly not before the terms were invented. Literal or allegorical? Yes, I think.

I recall, as a child, viewing a medieval representation of the Church’s concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didn’t quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge. Decades later, I recall hearing about scientists theorizing on the origin of the presence of water on Earth. The consensus seemed to be that 90% of the water on Earth most likely came from comets. That strikes me as a better understanding of the waters of the firmament than soaring domes and towering pillars.

None of the above will likely be found satisfactory for some on this forum. But, for those of us who seek the truth, both of scripture and science, it seems possibly to be a reasonable starting point.

156 posted on 11/13/2009 4:35:24 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat
I supported my “no sane biologist...” claim . . .”

You ignored your claim, treated it like poison ivy in fact, until I refused to allow you to get away with it. At that point you reverted to your quote, and tried to fit it to everything. But it shows Berkeley to be, at best, self contradictory, in light of its conflicting website quotes provided by me. Try as you might, you can’t put enough lipstick on that pig.

But . . . if that’s the best you can do . . .

157 posted on 11/13/2009 4:40:26 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
For those large and small comets, and the water they hold, to escape their barrier, does not someone/something have to open a gate/window/whatever?

Not literally. The objects in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud aren't orbiting behind some kind of physical barrier. If someone wants to think of "opening the windows of heaven" as a metaphor for the gravitational perturbations that might send a comet towards us, that's fine. But that's not literally what's going on.

the Church’s concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didn’t quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge.

That's pretty much what the Bible describes, IMO. Which is fine--I don't consider that a "lie." I'm just always amused by how some demand the six-day-creation, dust-of-the-earth part be taken as literally true (or you're not a "real Christian"), and yet tie themselves in knots explaining how the "windows of heaven" don't really mean windows.

158 posted on 11/13/2009 5:27:40 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; BrandtMichaels
None of the above will likely be found satisfactory for some on this forum.

Truer words were never spoken.

Evos won't be satisfied with any explanation of something in Scripture unless it fits their secular, materialistic, naturalistic worldview.

They'll have you chasing your tails with "what if's", demanding explanations for things in Scripture that no man can give because God didn't give us enough information and we don't know enough anyway.

And even if you can give a reasonable answer, it will be rejected off hand as not verifiable, which everyone knew all along, without resorting to denying it and having to refer to it as allegory in a vain effort to reject Scripture without coming right out and calling God a liar.

For the skeptic, even if someone rises from the dead, they won't be convinced. They won't believe God's word until they want to believe it.

It's never a matter of *can't* believe, but *won't* believe. God has given us enough to demonstrate His trustworthiness in things that we can understand, so that we can have confidence in the truthfulness of Scripture for those things we can't ever understand.

159 posted on 11/13/2009 5:37:17 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Well, I definitely know of many liberals (actually, this is a cornerstone of the liberal mindset) who reject evolution, its principles and implications. Just ask James Watson (the ‘double helix’ guy, who got busted for suggesting that different groups of people may have evolved separately, to a different outcome with respect to IQ; his liberal opponents, on the other hand, seem to believe that humans were created ‘according to their kind’, in a biblical manner).


What is the “cornerstone of the liberal mindset”...liberals know alot of fellow liberals...?

James Watson’s a liberal?

Wow...not the first name that would come to my mind, but OK...I’d like to see his political ideology...his support of big govt, science run by the NEA, votes and/or donates to hypocrats...etc.

But giving the benefit of the doubt, who are these so-called “liberal opponents” of his supportive of biblical creation?


160 posted on 11/13/2009 5:37:45 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; YHAOS

The word is also translated *floodgates*.

However, your posts have been an excellent example of my point in my last post.


161 posted on 11/13/2009 5:38:45 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“Everybody thinks some of the Bible isn’t true”.

Wow....usually you’re at least on the sane side of discussions here...

but this one...come on Lord Haw Haw! :)

Most certainly not, and as far as holes in the sky, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Semantics aside, there are holes in the sky...for instance, when a rocket blasts to the moon to punch a hole in the surface of the moon to expose water via explosives,

(a fascinating scientific subject here lately that has illustrated “the science has been (yet again!!!!!!) turned on it’s head”, etc.)

indeed “punches a hole in the sky” getting there.

As far as the “crux of the matter”, you’re getting warmer in a typical evo-liberal projectionist kind of way...

much of the time it’s most certainly NOT about the science with liberals...

pretty much what it boils down to is liberals can’t tolerate being judged, and mind you not so much by conservatives, or Christians, but indeed God Himself.

Just the idea of it is simply intolerable.

They want to wiggle out of His judgment and detest any kind of honest sincere direction aimed their way...so naturally they hijack science to disprove God and on and on and on.


162 posted on 11/13/2009 6:56:53 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

the joke here is that it doesn’t matter.

absolute certainty is unnecessary.

Darwin was merely the beginning of a dynamic process. .


163 posted on 11/13/2009 7:04:34 PM PST by Francois Marie Arouet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

If you’re incapable of reading, there’s nothing to gain by projections about your disability.


164 posted on 11/13/2009 7:10:35 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Not literally. The objects in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud aren't orbiting behind some kind of physical barrier.

I think you put too strict a confinement on the meaning of physical and barrier:

The gravitational forces that hold the comets in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, and the gravitational perturbations that allow one to occasionally escape, are allegorical or metaphorical in nature, and in no way can be considered a literal physical barrier?

Likewise the gravitational forces holding the earth in orbit around the Sun are purely allegorical in nature, and in no way can be considered a literal physical barrier?

Sound (as in the sound barrier) is purely allegorical in nature, and in no way can be considered a literal physical barrier?

Time (as in the 4 minute mile) is purely allegorical in nature, and in no way can be considered a literal physical barrier?

Light (as in the speed of light) is purely allegorical in nature, and in no way can be considered a literal physical barrier?

"That's pretty much what the Bible describes, IMO."

I know of no place in The Bible where it describes the parting of the waters by the firmament in terms of soaring domes and towering pillars. Enlighten me.

165 posted on 11/13/2009 7:31:03 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Evos won't be satisfied with any explanation of something in Scripture unless it fits their secular, materialistic, naturalistic worldview.

Speaking of true words.

. . . even if you can give a reasonable answer, it will be rejected off hand as not verifiable . . .

What can I say? We are all agents of a free will many deny, even as they apply it with abandon.

166 posted on 11/13/2009 7:45:04 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Saying there’s no connection between origins and evolution is like saying there’s no importance between electric razors and electricity.


167 posted on 11/13/2009 9:03:20 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The word is also translated *floodgates*.

Which are also openings in a physical barrier. So I take it, then, you do believe there was once a physical barrier around the earth with water on the other side and openings the water could pour through? If you don't believe that--because that's what the words say--how are you not rejecting Scripture? If you want to get around that by saying it's true in a way we can't understand, how is it nobody's allowed to do that with the part about making man from the dust of the earth? Do you really understand how that worked?

168 posted on 11/13/2009 10:13:42 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
The gravitational forces that hold the comets in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, and the gravitational perturbations that allow one to occasionally escape, are allegorical or metaphorical in nature, and in no way can be considered a literal physical barrier?

Not one that can have literal holes opened in it. I mean, come on! The comets don't escape through "windows" in the gravitation field--it's not like gravity goes away in certain places.

I know of no place in The Bible where it describes the parting of the waters by the firmament in terms of soaring domes and towering pillars.

I said "pretty much." The Bible describes the heavens spread out like a tent but at the same time as hard as a metal mirror, with God walking around in them. It's just artistic license to turn the hard metal tent into a dome held up by pillars.

169 posted on 11/13/2009 10:26:24 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Not one that can have literal holes opened in it. I mean, come on! The comets don't escape through "windows" in the gravitation field--it's not like gravity goes away in certain places.

It doesn’t?! You mean “gravitational perturbations” aren’t really disturbances in the gravitational field? Gravity doesn't have to "go away" - all it has to do is be stronger in some places and weaker in others.

However you parse the description, it seems the waters “above” and the waters “below” were divided (and now it seems even the moon got some of that stuff).

It's just artistic license to turn the hard metal tent into a dome held up by pillars.

Ya think? It was an attempt to describe the reality of what The Bible meant. We may now have a better model of that reality.

170 posted on 11/14/2009 10:47:54 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

“However you parse the description, it seems the waters “above” and the waters “below” were divided (and now it seems even the moon got some of that stuff).”

Finding water on the moon now constitutes evidence of the biblical accuracy of the division between waters above and below? What if water is found somewhere else? Might earth then be “above”?

Please, more!


171 posted on 11/14/2009 11:50:19 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

I rest my case.....


172 posted on 11/14/2009 11:52:44 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I rest my case.....

I seriously doubt that.

173 posted on 11/14/2009 11:53:32 AM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Actually, not only can natural selection not explain the origin of life, but any natural science at all can even come close to explaining the origin of life.


174 posted on 11/14/2009 11:57:55 AM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtg

“...not only can natural selection not explain the origin of life...”

It doesn’t claim to. Are you really that intellectually dishonest?


175 posted on 11/14/2009 12:40:12 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I rest my case.....

Is it tired? { :^ )

176 posted on 11/14/2009 1:16:08 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Finding water on the moon now constitutes evidence of the biblical accuracy of the division between waters above and below?

Your hypothesis? Good luck. I’m sure you would like to transfer ownership to me, in order to pick a fight. But, then, that’s what Trolls do. Troll being Troll.

Please, more!

More ?! Dear Pauper Assistant, another ladle of gruel for Oliver!

177 posted on 11/14/2009 1:19:02 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life

Well, duh. Before life originated there was nothing to select from.

178 posted on 11/14/2009 1:20:13 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Who does the “selecting” in natural selection?


179 posted on 11/14/2009 1:22:45 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

I have no hypotheses regarding the accuracy of scripture, as faith and science are wholly separate, albeit completely compatible. Are you in the habit of analyzing the tenets of Christian faith by experimental design?

Please, more!


180 posted on 11/14/2009 1:39:45 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Why don’t you try reading the whole sentence!!!!


181 posted on 11/14/2009 1:58:07 PM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
You would think that something so seemingly obvious would deserve a “well duh,” but it seems pretty clear that most people who naively accept Darwinism do not fully realize that his "theory" assumes an already living being capable of reproduction. Think about that for a moment. Talk about assuming miracles! And yet Richard Dawkins and many other evo-atheists seem to think that Darwin's theory is some sort of universal acid that dissolves the need for God!

And let's face it, even in the narrow area of the origins debate where Darwin does speak, he is guilty of taking empirical evidence that pointed to minor variations within the various animal kinds and extrapolating it into a macro-evolutionary "theory" that is nothing more than his evo-atheist worldview being imposed on the evidence.


182 posted on 11/14/2009 2:01:06 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

Natural selection is nothing more than differential reproduction, or in a word, “survival.” What is causing that survival? That would require an extremely sophisticated answer, much of which is still being guessed at by science. But whatever is actually causing it, the Temple of Darwin establishment assumes that it must be completely natural.


183 posted on 11/14/2009 2:04:21 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
I have no hypotheses regarding the accuracy of scripture . . .

Sure you do. Make it up . . . then try to transfer ownership in order to pick a fight.

Troll being Troll. Doing Troll is Troll.

184 posted on 11/14/2009 2:20:41 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

“Anyway, no sane biologist/biochemist would confuse origins of life with evolution of species”.

No logical non-cult afflicted scientist or other person dismisses, discounts, contorts into pretzels and above all: demands of others to be permanently dim-witted when acknowledging the impervious, logical and obvious connection between origins of life when discussing “origins of species/natural selection”.

The fact that liberals demand to have both explained away without any intelligence, any design and any common sense links the two as securely as liberals are linked to junk science ala algore’s hot air cult.


185 posted on 11/14/2009 3:01:30 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Or to coin an older phrase,

Troll is as Troll does.


186 posted on 11/14/2009 5:53:57 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Troll is as Troll does."

( ^: } Thank you Mrs. Gump

187 posted on 11/14/2009 6:36:24 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: mtg

I did, and it was unnecessary. I quoted an independent statement of yours whose meaning was not altered by the rest of the sentence.

Do you have any further thoughts to share?


188 posted on 11/14/2009 6:56:02 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Make it up? Hardly. Who do you think I am, Brian Thomas MS*?

I’m amused that you define “troll” as someone who holds a credible position in opposition to you.

Please, more!


189 posted on 11/14/2009 6:58:18 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: metmom
How does one coin an older phrase?
190 posted on 11/14/2009 7:00:04 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Francois Marie Arouet

Oh it matters all right. If it didn’t matter, liberals wouldn’t be clawing for children’s minds the way they do.

Welcome to FR!


191 posted on 11/14/2009 7:04:34 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"I’m amused that you define “troll” as someone who holds a credible position in opposition to you."

Making assertions that do not prove the fact.

That's what Trolls do. Doing Troll is Troll.

192 posted on 11/14/2009 7:15:15 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Spewing drivel, and on cue!

Please, more!


193 posted on 11/14/2009 7:23:25 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
More groundless assertions.

That's what Trolls do. Doing Troll is Troll.

194 posted on 11/14/2009 7:50:28 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

When I ask for more, I get more!

Please, more! We’re entertained!


195 posted on 11/14/2009 7:51:44 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

More Troll droppings.


196 posted on 11/14/2009 8:51:19 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

It’s sad to have a paucity of both logic and wit, yet you display the handicap proudly.

Please, more!


197 posted on 11/14/2009 9:04:46 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
It doesn’t?! You mean “gravitational perturbations” aren’t really disturbances in the gravitational field? Gravity doesn't have to "go away" - all it has to do is be stronger in some places and weaker in others.

Look, if you want to read "windows of heaven" as a metaphor for changing gravitational attractions, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm not here to argue that the Bible shouldn't be read metaphorically. Just don't then tell me I can't do the same with the dust of the earth, breath of life part. (I know you haven't, but some do, which was my only point.)

It was an attempt to describe the reality of what The Bible meant. We may now have a better model of that reality.

I don't see what you're driving at. I agree with you, that painting you described was an attempt to depict what the Bible said. That's what I said from the start.

198 posted on 11/14/2009 11:24:01 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Do you have any further thoughts to share?

Yes I do.

I did not state that natural selection claims to be able to explain the origin of life. I merely stated the fact that it cannot explain it. And it was not an independent statement. It was only part of a full statement, used to preface the second part of the statement.

Please point out to me any part of my statement where I declared that natural selection claims to explain the origin of life.

199 posted on 11/15/2009 12:41:52 PM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Look, if you want to read "windows of heaven" as a metaphor for changing gravitational attractions

“. . . no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge.” (T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures , Book I, Chap. 7)

I’m not looking for a metaphor for anything. I’m looking for a better understanding. Tell me, what is the metaphoric meaning of “Thou shalt not covet . . .”? Or, the metaphoric meaning of “In the beginning”? Just to turn the question around (every debate sword has two edges) on those critics of Christianity who insist that, if The Bible is to be taken literally, it must be taken literally in its entirety (including Jonah and the whale – their favorite foil). Failing that, the critics are pleased to cry “cherry picker!” or “hypocrite!”

I do accept scripture literally (as in “Thou shalt not steal”). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. On this I would note that the dual commission issued to the KJV translators was to combine elegance of translation with faithfulness to the text (see In The Beginning, by Alister McGrath). I think the translators were eminently successful in their task. All of which leads me to conclude that scripture amounts to something more than a lab report, or a series of disparate lab reports. If one’s object in surveying scripture is for a purpose greater than merely promoting an argument, this understanding is indispensable. The cultural tradition and the literary tradition of both the English-speaking people and of the Hebrew people demand it.

" I don't see what you're driving at.

Which word is giving you trouble? ( ^: }

I’m simply suggesting that the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud represent a better explanation (a better model) of the firmament, than a medieval depiction of soaring domes and towering pillars. I do not and cannot say, of course, that it will be the final explanation or model.

200 posted on 11/15/2009 1:15:18 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson