Posted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Their extreme bias against supernaturalism and immaterialism causes them to have an irrational skepticism of all the testimonies of individuals who have personal experiences of God's saving power in their lives.
No.
" How does a book written thousands of years ago and full of arbitrary claims become the standard by which science is judged?"
It's not just another book; its unique accuracy is demonstrated in many different ways. Some of those include scientific accuracy, in which some of the principles of modern science were recorded and described (though not in technical language we know today, of course), and its singular historical accuracy. This is a quote from Dr. Nelson Glueck, an expert on Israeli archaeology:
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, is the fact that many prophecies have been specifically fulfilled----300 Old Testament prophecies alone were fulfilled when Christ came. Another example is the rebirth of the nation of Israel. The Jews are the only ancient people to have been scattered throughout the world and yet gathered together again as a nation, after thousands of years. This was all clearly foretold in Scripture.
albionin, I took a glance at your posting history (hope you don't mind; I often do that, and I don't mind at all when folks check mine). I see you believe that there's enough evidence to believe in UFOS. If that's your view, then certainly it would be a wise thing to take into account the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is true.
If it took God seven days to create Earth and the universe, wouldn’t you call that an evolutionary process?
If you didn't see it it was because you didn't want to see it. This guy, if he is a Catholic, should listen to what the Pope has to say on the subject - the Pope is much more educated and smarter than he is, as well as being a much better writer.
You're talking about a fetus growing into an infant, then an adult, all of the same species. That isn't evolution, it is growth. The fertilized human egg will grow into an adult human every time. An antelope fetus grows into an antelope, not a giraffe.
Oh, now. Explain the cargo cult known as "dark matter" under the auspices of such high-minded physics, then.
It's the modern equivalent of the old "There they be dragons" at the end of the flat world map.
Creation doesn’t explain new species evolution doesn’t explain the moon maybe someday God will tell me otherwise until then I’ll believe in both
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:2-4
The passage goes on to include the angels, verse 7.
Atheistic and Theistic Evolutionists think they know all about it. The latter claim God did it by evolution. Just a theory, they weren't there. The passage includes the angels, did God create them by evolution also? Little baby angels growing into full grown angels? No, of course not. Same with Adam and Eve. Same with the trees in the garden. Trees have growth rings. They were created supernaturally by a supernatural God bypassing natural process. He doesn't need natural processes to create. The problem with Theistic Evolution, though they claim to believe in God, they really don't.
Excellent point!
That's right, and humans alone are supposedly predestined to live on after something like crossing the Styx to Hades.
God decreed that all animals would reproduce after their own kind, and so they have. One kind cannot change into another; changes over time are a result of variations within their God-created kind, which stays the same. This is not evolution.
Interestingly, and as an aside, evolution cannot be a fact because it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Simply put, it says that everything falls apart and disintegrates over time....left to themselves, chemical compounds break down; they do not become more complex. This natural law would have to be completely disregarded and/or disproven for one to believe in evolution.
"doesn’t explain the moon"
Not sure what you mean by that?
" maybe someday God will tell me otherwise until then I’ll believe in both"
He already has; it's right there in Scripture for you. To believe in evolution means that Jesus lied when He said man and woman were created in the beginning, and we know He doesn't lie.
Creationism would have it that it is Angels holding the universe together? Is that preferable to your way of thinking than a material physical provisional explanation subject to experimental evidence and refinement?
There they be dragons. Magic dragons. Or turtles. Yep, that’s it, turtles. All the way down.
That's the point at which I realized this article wasn't going to have anything useful to offer. Anyone who can say that a theory is by definition "not a science" doesn't know what he's talking about. And that's a fact, not a theory.
AGREE. The author has no idea what the scientific definition of theory is.
Evolution is a fact. We are evolving even now. In fact we are participating in and directing in our own evolution right now.
Prosthetic limbs, gene manipulation, cloning, are all part of the evolutionary process. GOOGLE “transhumanism” and see what the future holds for future generations.
Everything changes. We conservatives can only hold back the tide for a few decades. But change will come for good or ill and we will all be long gone just ssh our ancestors are long gone.
Prosthetic limbs are evolution? People have been wearing hats and shoes for many thousands of years, yet nobody is born with them. I'd say the same for prosthetics.
Just Google transhumanism. You’ll see what I am talking about.
I think “both” is a possible position. (We have to still be careful what we mean by evolution since the field has a wide range of theorists and some go far afield in their conclusions.)
It could be both in that evolution is the God implemented creation. As, I believe, Galileo said mathematics is the language of God (in nature) regarding his astronomy; mutation may be the language of God in species.
No one suggests pure chaos in natural science and there are close to an infinity of possible survivable niches, so positing a direction is not ruled out by the science of evolution. So far as we observe, the universe “evolves” self-conscious beings.
It could therefore, and also, be both in the manner of world views. The facts on the ground (so to speak) would be the same whether the large is the accretion of the small or whether the small is the result of the large. The first being the non-Creationist view, the latter being the Creationist view.
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.