Posted on 07/19/2006 12:39:07 PM PDT by 2nsdammit
Wow. 26 feet x 37 miles is a lot of new land. That's about 116 acres. Cool. Wonder who owns it? It's kinda like a stock split where you now own more land than you used to. A new paradigm in real estate investment!
It's all pretty much desert, so I'm not sure how much of a bargain it would be...
. Neither did theology, of itself, produce the religious wars. Science did provide the means, and often the rationale. (Think Mengele) The idea is afoot that scientists are meritocrats whose opinions should be accepted over those of, say, priests, even when they are talking about matters beyond their province, or making claims for their art that are merely wishful thinking . Physicians are famous for their god-like postures (just ask any nurse). Scientists of all stripes are prone to the same arrogance.
You'll take anything in a skirt :-)
A statement from Frank Schafer. I do not see him denying evolution outright. Therefore, scientific media has no problem publishing him even though he claims to be a Christian.
"Might I be more detailed in stating my reservations concerning the standard evolutionarymodel? Sure. Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidencethat God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good. My first concern is that, with thecollapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin oflife, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly highinformation content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists. Second,the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossilrecord is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developmentsoccur, they come rapidly, not gradually. My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactorymechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in thebeaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or viceversa) appear to me inappropriate."
Physicians are not scientists. They are technicians applying what scientists have discovered and developed.
Many people (including many who claim to be scientists) express strong opinions outside their areas of competence.
Science is a system of rational analysis. How the results are applied is up to the individual.
People who understand the scientific method, and have the intelligence and knowledge base to use it effectively, don't have these problems. They are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
The problem is not with the scientific method, but with those who will lie about it's application, and the many who lack the intellect to tell the difference.
And this statement from Francis Collins. Again, he does not subscribe to God's creation of man without evolution. Therefore the scientific community will embrace him. Keep looking, you may yet find one but it's going to take you a while.
I'm what's called a theistic evolutionist. I believe god had a purpose that involved you and me as individuals, people that he wished to have fellowship with. I believe that the way he decided to do that creative step utilized the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that requires god to step in and fill in these gaps in the development of the eye. I think evolution is self-sufficient. I think god is basically the mind that is behind it.
All scientists are technicians. If they are not good technicians, then they are not good scientists. What the heck is science if not methodology? Not many people can do science as Einstein did, with thought experiments.
What I am opposed to is evolution as a caoital "E". Remember in mathetaical terms it is best described as an outward spiral, or development meant. What is not clear is the rule that governs it.
I am opposed to evolution with a big or a small "e". They both elimate God out of the equation in one way or the other. Doesn't matter that some say that God is involved in evolution. That is a total lie.
Evolution which deals with what is empirically verifiable is useful, although I don't see the utiliity in doing such research on dinosaurs. I guess it is because the public is fascinated with these dragon-like beasts. Never underestimate the publics need to be entertained.
If you do not know the difference between a scientist and a technician, you have no understanding of science. I don't have time to educate you, but you could try attending any good university, enroll in some real (non-bonehead) science classes, and try to think about what your profs are trying to teach you.
Science is not rote, nor is it technique. It is a system of learning universal truths, that has proven to be by far the most powerful tool developed by mankind. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of people seem to be both willing and able to use the tool.
Funny that the Catholic church has included evolution as part of its creation dogma, since the 1980s. I guess Pope John Paul II just had a bit more imagination than you do.
What did you pick this gnosticism? 99% of scientists are doing "stuff," not sitting around smoking a pipe., cognating on the meaninng of it all. Most of the crucial, groundlaying work on DNA was done by "technicians". Guys like Crick have more in common with Edison than with Einstein.
You stated, "Funny that the Catholic church has included evolution as part of its creation dogma, since the 1980s. I guess Pope John Paul II just had a bit more imagination than you do."
I will now await the obligatory put downs that usually occur... one will say that Pope John Paul 11 was not really a Christian...someone else will say that the Pope really does not understand the Bible...another person will claim that the Pope is just trying to appeal to scientific ideas...
Someone will always have a reason to put the Pope down...it occurs to me, that the various Popes, having devoted their lifetimes to the study of the Bible, and having access to the greatest scientific minds, should they require it, know a great deal more about evolution, and creation, within the Biblical context than the average person...
And no, I am not a Catholic...
Only in the fact that Hezbollah starts with a premise of discrediting Jewish Scripture. But, frankly, I was trying to be a little absurd. #1, the view you expressed came from liberal theologians who immediately dismiss the existence of the supernatural and have to come up with a natural explanation for things that happened in Scripture. God couldn't have supernaturally parted the deep part of the Red Sea so it really had to be some narrow part of an adjoining waterway instead that naturally parts at times. Of course, how the entire Egyptian army of that chase got drowned in all that shallow water is not really a consideration. #2 Nobody knows for sure where the Hebrews crossed; however, there is evidence that they were in Egypt at the right time period. David Rohl, another agnostic, and others, have interesting work in this area.
:)
A bit more? I don't have any of that type of imagination.
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.
