Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
"Read the Old Testament (at a minimum). Move from your atheism to deism (at a miniumum). "
Oh, my friend, I have read the Old Testament. I have read it six times straight through and much of it many more times than that. I can say the same for the New Testament.
I have read the scriptures of several religions, but I have focused primarily on the dominant religion of my own culture.
Trust me. I know the Bible. I know it very well, indeed.
The scientific method is the same. It's the confidence intervals that change.
"Rinse, repeat."
Some of us need a better rinse. ;)
There is nothing testable in your lengthy reply. It's just an excuse for something that currently does not have an explanation.
Really, as opposed to the ID folks who say "God created Adam and Eve, it's in Genesis and if you don't believe it you're a godless satanic communist."
The world is waiting eagerly for the creationists to prove their theory. Let's see it.
I am flattered, but I should pass on this one since I get in trouble every time I note that Darwinists seek through reductionism to define an emergent phenomenon, whereas IDers appear to be trying to cite an emergent phenomenon without sufficient referral to the evidence to show that it is emergent. If the debates were kept to that limitation, without bringing in God or anti-god rhetoric, the discussion might actually accomplish something. Evolution exhibits emergent properties, but we do have an extensive fossil record to which Science may refer; with a voluminous record of phyla, missing data isn't a refutation of reductionist notions so much as it is evidence of emergent phenomena ... to extrapolate existence or non-existence of a designer is oblique to the real issues. And you don't even want me to get into the illogic/irrationality dripping from creationist dogma.
"If I read this correctly, the TOE is, basically:
Things change - get used to it."
Clearly, and derision is good enough for science?
>>Others use other sources. For some, a book written around 3-4000 years ago to explain things to nomadic shepherds will suffice to explain things.<<
Some things, yes. It does not speak to every nook and cranny of creation. That is why man invented "science" and "mathematics". It is also why God gave us the ability to do just that.
I'd challenge that. Definitions are a lot fuzzier. I have yet to find a good definition of life that can last. I have had no problem adhering to the defitions of chemical and physical processes I learned when I was young.
Biology is the study of very complex things, so it's nearly impossible to limit the number of variables to only one. Most of what I see discussed as biology is either observation of the living and developing a story to try to explain its behavior, or biochemestry which is really chemestry.
Shalom.
So then, you believe there is a creation/evolution hybrid thing going on? Is my brain more complex than that of a Sparrow? So which part was created, and which part “morphed”.
So, you see, you get a basic fact wrong and that affects your argument in a negative way.
No, you seem to be more interested in what you think I meant than what I actually typed.
I recommend that you go to your local public library and ask for an introductory book on Evolutionary Theory. That way, you can learn something about it.
I recommend you brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Education does not equal knowledge, which does not equal wisdom.
"Some things, yes. It does not speak to every nook and cranny of creation."
There was no need for it to. Of what use would information regarding the evolution of, say, the marsupials be to nomadic shepherds?
No, Genesis gives a neat explanation of how things happened...enough to more than satisfy nomadic shepherds. It's very useful that way, just as are the creation stories in all ancient scriptures. Hinduism has several, depending on which of the many creations are being addressed.
We're less easily satisfied today. We do know a lot of things. We've visited some nearby moons and planets, either in person or via robotics. We have the tools to see things as small as individual atoms.
No, Genesis doesn't do as a good explanation for us today. It was adequate when it was written, though. I'm sure none of the nomadic shepherds questioned it at the time. They'd have no reason to, nor any interest in doing so.
The time of Moses was a long, long time ago. It was the bronze age, but many living in that time still used stone tools, since they were less costly. The population of the world known to the Israelites was small, and an entire people could cross the desert and come to a new territory to claim as their own.
Genesis is a great book. It's one of our earliest records of a culture. It has survived, intact, because it was a religious text. Indeed, only religious texts have survived that long, but there are a few others of the same age. All have similar characteristics, particularly in their creation stories.
I'm of the opinion, though, that the turtle theory is the best one. It is, indeed, turtles...all the way down.
I hate to tell you this but people have known how for millennia. Men seem to enjoy it more than women, and both seem to enjoy it more than animals, but we have all understood the process pretty well.
The additional detail has proven interesting, but not any more useful.
Shalom.
No that is not true as far as evolutionists are concerned. There was quite a fuss about 400 scientists named Dave signing a letter in support of evolution as well as a number of other polls of educators and "scientists" that come up from time to time.
Evolution is only possible if there is no creator as Darwin explains in his thesis.
I am a not a sir.
I'm sorry, I have a cold.
Just as hominids evolved into other species such as homo habilus and homo sapian, viruses evolve into other viruses that are more deadly.
I don't think anyone has any trouble with this concept. Humanity has understood this for millennia (although not at the virus level).
I think the sticking point is when a virus becomes something that is not a virus.
Shalom.
"So then, you believe there is a creation/evolution hybrid thing going on? Is my brain more complex than that of a Sparrow? So which part was created, and which part “morphed”."
Not really. My personal opinion is that the whole universe is a natural phenomenon, brought about by the laws of physics. Life is chemistry.
A sparrow is not a mammal. Your brain is actually somewhat more complex than a bird's brain. It is not, however, different in its components than that of a mouse. The human brain is larger and has more neural connections than that of a mouse, but the structures are equivalent. Different portions of the human brain are larger (comparitively) than the mouse's brain, but the various sections of the brain are made up of virtually identical components.
The bird's brain is more closely related to that of the reptiles. There are common structures, however, even in the bird or reptile brain and the human brain. The brain stem, for example, which handles some basic things, like the beating of the heart, etc., along with the fight/flight instinct, are quite similar in birds and humans.
"I recommend you brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Education does not equal knowledge, which does not equal wisdom."
Knowledge comes almost exclusively from education. Even the most basic of human functions must be taught, such as walking. Education does, indeed, lead to knowledge. Wisdom, on the other hand, is a rare thing. It's seldom found in human beings.
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.