Posted on 02/07/2009 12:39:59 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
In reality, evolution has done nothing to help real science, and has actually hindered it in many ways...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Also see:
Science vs. Scripture: An Open Response to Dr. John Ankerberg (and the marketing Hugh Ross)
http://www.icr.org/article/4453/
By definition he theory of evolution doesn’t deal with how life began only what happened after.
If you oppose scientific materialism you will have a much easier time of it challenging it on origin of life questions than evolution questions. As flawed as the theory of evolution may be, they at least have a superficially plausible story and a view with a lot of adherents.
When it come to the origin of life there is no consistent or coherent theory just a hodgepodge of speculations along with some extremely difficult if not impossible contradictions involving needing proteins to create proteins and the sheer complexity of the simplest cell.
The weakness of the atheist materialist case is origin of life questions not evolution likewise the mind body problem not monkeys evolving to humans by natural selection is the place to attack them.
Crouch: That's right.
Stein: Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
--http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=
The simple fact is that around 1940, there were all kinds of problems reconciling evolution and genetics. These were resolved simply by the likes of Julian Huxley’s sophistries and the pronouncments of secular humanists dismissing any problems. The developments involving DNA has added nothing toward a generalized theory of life.
Maybe in 1870, bu6t that sure aint true now
My problem is, neither evolution nor biblical creation work for me.
==My problem is, neither evolution nor biblical creation work for me.
What model/worldview works for you?
Do I have to choose one or the other? Biblical creationism is based completely on faith, with no evidence other than the bible to support it. Evolution is a theory which leaves as many questions unanswered as it tries to explain. While I believe God made it all happen, I have no idea how.
Darwinian evolution requires far more faith than creation. Darwin was a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist who presumed to rewrite the entire history of biology based on a few minor variations between finches. His book was not based on science, it was little more than a long argument based on almost no evidence. The majority of Darwinian/neo-Darwinian predictions have been so utterly falsified that even the Evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new evolutionary ship. Creation Science, on the other hand, is as ship-shape as ever, battle tested, and ready to chase down the next materialistic theory that attempts to give blind chance credit for God’s creation.
That as it may be, not believing Darwin’s theories does not mean the only alternative is biblical creationism. I’m not sure what you mean by Creation Science, but if it means the earth was created 6 thousand years ago, sorry, I won’t accept it any more than Darwin.
==That as it may be, not believing Darwin’s theories does not mean the only alternative is biblical creationism.
Unless, of course, it is true.
==I’m not sure what you mean by Creation Science, but if it means the earth was created 6 thousand years ago, sorry, I won’t accept it any more than Darwin.
Creation Science seeks the physical evidence that must have been left behind if a straightforward reading of the creation week contained in Genesis is true. If you “won’t” accept the Genesis account of creation under any circumstances, then your rejection of the same has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your preferred world view.
“If you “won’t” accept the Genesis account of creation under any circumstances, then your rejection of the same has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your preferred world view.”
I don’t accept a lot of things for which evidence is non-existent. Virtually everything in Genesis and other books of the bible has to be accepted on faith since there is no physical evidence to prove it, and a lot of science which disproves it. One can legitimately argue evolution is wrong by challenging the science, which I do all the time. But to try and argue evolution is wrong because the bible is right does not disprove evolution at all, it simply offers a counter argument for which there is no more proof than evolution.
To suggest the world was flooded during Noah’s time requires one to accept that God made water since to cover the world with a flood would require more water than currently exists on the planet. If one accepts that God made the flood then that is not science, that is faith. To believe two of every animal currently alive on the planet could fit into an ark one must believe Noah, commanded by God could build an ark big enough to fit them all, not to mention getting them all in one place. Those would all have to be God driven and that requires faith, not science to believe.
Believing in God and trying to understand his will does not require me to accept there was an Adam and Eve. To me it is far more important to understand what God is saying (through the Adam and Eve story) to all of us about evil, temptation, and following our own will and not his.
The term “world view” seems to be an attempt to categorize anyone who does not accept what you believe as having an agenda counter to a belief in God. We will never know from whence all the matter came that our universe is made from. I cannot accept it was always here and have no doubt it was created by God. But that comes from faith, not science. The mechanics of it being molded into what we are today is far less important to me than trying to understand, on a daily basis, what his will is.
You are of course right, when it comes to the public debate
The atheist-materialist debaters conflate the two.
Even if someone was able to prove in detail the evolution of single celled organisms into human beings that would not provide any evidence to support the idea that the first cell came about from the random natural mixture of primordial chemicals.
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.