Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[realpatriot71]

If so, then it's clear that they don't understand the meaning of the words "science", "theory", or "fact", and have no place trying to impose their ideas about them onto science classrooms.

It is an argument in semantics to be sure, but at the same time science cannot "prove" evolution anymore than it can "prove" any aspect of science.

[Remedy]

show me where religion does that, and i'll have my shoes for dessert.

posted on 02/24/2003 5:18 PM EST by whattajoke

You just put both feet firmly in your mouth.

With An Apology to Arius: When and How Should We Deal with Heresies and Heretics?

[MineralMan]

"That would be better than an artistic rendition of rock to man."

Yes, right. Now, who teaches that humans came from rocks? That's a new theory on me. Oh wait....it's in Genesis...now I remember. Goddidit.

[f.Christian]

Star gazing in box (( pinholes // evolution )) --- you !

[realpatriot71]

Will this propsed disclaimer apply to all scientific theories, or just evolution?

As far as I know, just evolution.

[whattajoke]

on these threads, there are enough folks who believe what you wrote that it's tough to decipher sometimes.

[rwfromkansas]

I hardly ever post on these threads anymore. The arrogance of the evolutionists on FR and elsewhere is simply breathtaking. Nobody but they can be scientific in their self-centered eyes.

[Remedy]

Chapter 7 Thermodynamics of Living Systems, p113

Chapter 8 Thermodynamics and the Origin of life, p127

Chapter 9 Specifying How Work is to be Done, p144

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

It would be just about what I had in a private Christian school in the 70's, i.e. full, complete instruction on where the SCIENCE is, including evolution as well as science that supports a Creationist point of view. Either viewpoint requires faith. Darwinism is not reproducible science. Darwin may claim to be consistent with Scientific fact, but it is not based on reproducible Science. Creationists can make the same claim.

My college science classes required an evolutionary viewpoint to attain a passing grade, period. You couldn't introduce other faith-based view points, based on science, if they differed from Darwinist dogma. You couldn't ask a question that pre-supposed a Creationist world view.

No Creationist wants to eliminate free and open discourse. No Creationist wants to prevent introduction of Scientific evidence on the origins of the Universe and man, even if they disagree with the theories offered with that evidence. We'd just like to have the same "1st Ammendment" rights that the rest of the Scientific world has. However, Darwinists can't tolerate dissent, because much of their "science" rests upon a foundation of half-truths, misinterpretations, and lies.

[Ichneumon]

Evolution is like a tropical flower in Churchill MB. Even if you protect it from the elements it will soon die.

Yawn. Luddites have been predicting the imminent demise of evolution for 150 years now. "Yup, it'll happen Real Soon Now", they keep assuring us.

[whattajoke]

As far as I know, just evolution.

umm... this one's too easy!

[f.Christian]

good question... one which has no answer. Since creation myths are a dime a dozen. geeze, even the bible has a couple competing ones!

Montessori science // insanity --- evolution!

Brainwashing (( Truth // conservatism )) --- Indoctrinating (( liberalism // lies )) !!

"Fraud --- corruption" !

[atlaw]

Oops. I'm a Tenn. native, and in the hills, "hey" is a universal substitute for "hi". I take it by the tone of your subsequent posts that you were not sending along a greeting when you initially said "hey atlaw."

I'm not criticizing, by the way, or pontificating. I'm asking. And I figured you'd have a general idea. No offense intended.

[libertylover]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The studies that we call evolution, biology, physics, astronomy, etc., are the studies of how, in part at least, He did it.

I don't really see much of a conflict unless you try to tell me all this happened only 4000 years ago. That, I don't believe at all.

[MineralMan]

"Montessori science // insanity --- evolution!

Brainwashing (( Truth // conservatism )) --- Indoctrinating (( liberalism // lies )) !!

"Fraud --- corruption" !

"

Do try to make sense, please, f.Christian. Your unorthodox punctuation and lack of verbs make your words incomprehensible. If you wish to communicate, please do so in English. Thanks very much.

[rwfromkansas]

I guess Mr. Newton is just some old folgie too, isn't he.

[Servant of the Nine]

Y'all can teach inteligent design in schools if you want, It won't bother me, but don't try to pass it off as Science.

Science is the study of how things work when there is no supernatural action.
Inteligent design might even be correct, but it can never be science. Call it theology, that's what it is.

So9

[whattajoke]

However, Darwinists can't tolerate dissent

yawn. come up with some good science which is "dissenting" to evolution, and you've got plenty of magazine covers, funding, and heroic status ahead of you. We're all waiting. The fact is no creationist has ever put forth anything other than picayune critiques or evolution, twisted quotes, lies, absurdities, and tricks. the scientific world is very cold and calculating, come up with something valid, then we'll talk.

[Remedy]

Darwinism and the Law

Berkhof speaks for many Christian theologians when he argues that evolution and theism are not compatible:[121]

This [theistic evolution] has often been called derisively a ‘stop-gap’ theory. It is really a child of embarrassment, which calls God in at periodic intervals to help nature over the chasms that yawn at her feet. It is neither the Biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of evolution, for evolution is defined as ‘a series of gradual progressive changes effected by means of resident forces’ (Le Conte). In fact, theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms. It is just as destructive of faith in the Biblical doctrine of creation as naturalistic evolution is; and by calling in the creative activity of God time and again it also nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis.[122]

[MineralMan]

"old folgie "

Huh? Newton? What does he have to do with anatomy? You may remember that Newton revolutionized Physics, not biology. Time for a refresher course, I guess.