Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[medved]

How in the world does that make creationism (Adam & Eve, Noah's ark, woman coming from man's rib, talking snakes, etc) the leading scientific alternative or any viable alternative at all?

It doesn't. I recommend Christianity as a religion myself, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that evolution is so abysmally stupid, that you could believe in any sort of a religion at all, and be better off. You could worship Odin and Thor, Cthulu, Dagon, the great pumpkin and pumpkinism, or absolutely anything and you'd still be better off than believing in an ideological doctrine which required an endless series of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events.

My own attempt to make some sense of the biblical miracles and other facets of antique literature reside here. There is, to my thinking, no making sense of evolution.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is the taproot...holy grail of liberalism---the clone farm/spores!

Evolutionists are the weed(maggot-flies)...

rotten infested fruit from the REPROBATES/parasites/blood-life suckers of Truth/civilization!

Pretty simple...Tree of Life/Truth vs death/lies(devils/heresy)!

-------------------------------------------------

The MO...MAGIC of the EVO taliban...

missing dove(TRUTH/SCIENCE)---

appearing rabbit(RATS)---lies/fraud!

[narby]

I believe his methods are so far advanced it wouldn't have taken him quite that long. 8 * )

Is God impatient? Has he not been in existence forever? What would he do in forever, except patiently wait on his creation to develop?

God's time is forever. Humans think in human time periods. I think He took millions of years, and His methods are best described by scientific Evolution.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You are wrong. "Theory" is used scientifically to represent a body of knowledge, for example: Group Theory, Theory of Equations, Theory of Gravity, String Theory, Music Theory, etc.

[jim35]

Well, I don't know about the "graven images" idea, but you certainly have a point about belief being the servant of truth. And I will admit that though I believe in God, I'm not really clear on the nature of the supreme being. The only thing I'm really clear on, is that nobody else is, either.

[dubyagee]

I think He took millions of years, and His methods are best described by scientific Evolution.

I think evolutionary theory it's self points to a Creator. The fact that man now thinks that everything came from a few cells points to one Creator of everything. If everything appears related, it is because the same Mind created it all. I just don't buy the 'millions of years' at this point.

[jim35]

A very civil reply to a very uncivil attack. Congratulations on maintaining your sense of dignity.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Please show some evidence of creation. Perhaps you could give an example of something created versus something not created to show that your claims are not meaningless.

Your attacks on scientists are completely unwarranted. This sort of blanket attack is like saying "All Republicans are Racists." It only shows the lack of substance in your own position.

[Physicist]

Scientists and mathematicians recognize that there are “laws” and there are “theories.” Laws are not disputable. Theories are possible explanations for events.

Incorrect. Laws are empirically observed relationships, whereas theories are conceptual models. The term "law" and "theory" refer only to how they are derived, and not to whether they are correct.

Examples: the atomic theory of matter is known to be correct, but because it is a conceptual description of matter, it is and always will be a theory. Ampere's Law for electrical circuits is known to be incorrect (as the presence of a capacitor will show), but it is and always will be a law, because it is a statement of observed behavior.

[jim35]

"I would say yes, but you're using the loaded term 'creation' which assumes that the universe is created, which has not been universally accepted. "

So, if the universe wasn't created... it was... what? Maybe it doesn't exist. Please explain about the people who don't believe the universe was created. This ought to be good!

[dubyagee]

Your attacks on scientists are completely unwarranted. This sort of blanket attack is like saying "All Republicans are Racists." It only shows the lack of substance in your own position.

Sincerely sorry. Did not mean to offend. Should have stated some scientists.

From my point of view, everything is created, so it would be impossible to point out anything that isn't.

I love these threads when they are civil, and do not wish to be guilty of being uncivil. Again, I apologize. No offense intended.

[jim35]

"Scientific fact is not determined by popular vote."

Well, it's not supposed to be, anyway.

[Prince Caspian]

Scientific fact is not determined by popular vote.

No it's not. However, what gets taught in public, taxpayer-financed schools largely is. That was the original posters point.

Come to think of it, I'm not so sure popular vote, or at least popular opinion, doesn't determine scientific fact (i.e., theory - even what we think we know as fact usually isn't the entire picture). Think of Galileo who dared suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe. He was threatened by his old college roommate, who happened to be the Pope, with burning at the stake, or some such barbarism. He promptly revised his scientific fact/theory.

[jim35]

"As far as the ridiculousness of a "big coincidence" is concerned, it would depend on how many "trials" there were. If the cosmos was repeatedly attempting to jump-start a new universe with trillions and quadrillions of failures, eventually it will get lucky,..."

If the "cosmos" was "trying" to start a universe... a conscious act... wouldn't it then be God?

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is equally good evidence that Unkulunkulu created the world.

[Dimensio]

I don't claim to know how the universe came to be. It might have been created, or it might have been brought into existence through some other method that could not be accurately termed 'creation'.

[jim35]

What I mean is, it also relies on other religion's beliefs in other understandings of God (or whatever other name/s other's use). I believe in God, and in creation, but I am not a Christian, per se.

[VadeRetro]

Scientists reject anything that leads to evidence of creation, ie. the placement of earth in the universe . . .

Just where do you think we are in the universe? A garden-variety star in a spiral arm of a garden-variety galaxy. And, before you bother, if the neighborhood didn't support life, life wouldn't be here.

[jim35]

The DNA of every living thing on this Earth is very similar, and some species have closer matches than others, but this is absolutely beside the point, since it proves our descent from chickens is as viable as from anything else.

[dd5339]

"It isn't apples and oranges. Alchemy and astrology are pseudosciences, just like "scientific creationism"/"intelligent design theory".

Just curious if you have read Dempski's "Intelligent Design"? I think if you had you would not be making the statement you did. Dempski's arguements stand up to critical, logical, and scientific reasoning. They don't take a professing Christian to accept. Just someone who hasn't closed off all possibilites in their mind.

Semper Fi