Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Nope. Materialists in no way believe in miracles and he clearly states that life is a miracle in that quote.
Evolutionists when presented with evidence showing that scientists do not believe in their garbage always make excuses that the people did not mean it, have said otherwise at some time or other, the quote is old or numerous other nonsense excuses. The question they never answer though is why did these people make these statements if they did not mean them? Are they some kind of idiots just blaberring away nonsense? They even claim that the quote on eugenics by Darwin is 'not what he meant' when clearly the whole concept of evolutionary theory rests on getting rid of the laggards as the quote on the top of the article shows. Indeed to evolutionists, getting rid of the 'less viable' is the way of progress to bigger and better things.
Therefore this constant attack on quotes is just a lame defense by evolutionists of their ideology. They cannot contemplate that any honest, reasonable person can disagree with their theory. They cannot countenance that anyone can say that the emperor of evolution has no clothes so they must paint all who say it as idiots or nutcases. The problem they have is that it is not just idiots or nutcases that disagree with evolution, reasonable, smart people disagree with it.
The large amount of evidence presented in the article above shows quite well that there is much scientific reason to reject evolution. That evolutionists do not dare discuss the evidence presented in the article above shows that the evidence presented against evolution is fact and not refutable.
They were not designed at random, they were designed with a purpose. He made species fit to live in their environment. He made them able to live through and survive different and varied threats to it. Nevertheless, there are many species which while perfectly fit for their environment exhibit features which in no way they could have inherited through evolutionary means. I show those creatures which I am sure could not have developed through evolutionary means in the article above and give links showing why they are so unique. I am sure there are many more of which I do not know about.
That bones alone don't make a relationship. What happened to the mesonychus characteristics of the Pakicetus? How do you explain the whale-hippo closeness with in this diagram? How does the ambolucetus come from the Pakicetus if this is the diagram of the relationship?
Note this image comes from Nature and is produced by Thewissen. --- source of the above image.
I went to this site:
http://www.breslov.com/ref/Isaiah40.htm
which has the bible in Hebrew and English. The English translation of Isaiah 40:22 is this:
It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;The site has a Hebrew-Engish dictionary. "Circle" in English gives this in Hebrew: gwx. Transliterated (whatever that means) it's Chuwg, which is what you gave. The definition (for both, presumably) is given as: 1. circle, circuit, compass; 2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)
The same word is in Proverbs 8:27. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.
And in Job 22:14. Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
I am no bible scholar (obviously) but I see no hint of "sphericity" in any of these uses of the term.
Yee-Haa! PatrickHenry the Biblical scholar. What a twist to keep your lies. A four cornered disk now. Your reading of the Holy Scriptures is unique to say the least.
What threads have you been reading? The article above is about scientific facts and the evolutionists only want to talk about religion and bash Christianity. Religious people are trying to meet the evolutionists on their own field and the evolutionists refuse to defend their side and instead attack either their opponents religion or their opponents themselves. If evolution were science, they could easily meet the attack on their theory on scientific grounds. They cannot.
By opting out of the scientific process,
Who is opting out of the scientific process? Are you making the ridiculous and easily refutable claim that all scientists are atheists? Discuss the scientific questions presented against evolution instead of bashing your opponents. Again if evolution is science - defend the science of evolution.
with in=within
ambolucetus=(some creature developed for Darwininian pleasure) or ambulocetus -- take your choice
No, but their imagined relationships are continually touted as prima facie evidence for Darwinian evolution. So how do you answer the questions I posed?
It seems that your tendency toward personal projection points inescapeably to the inherent collapse in your arguments. While radical if not instantaneous polar shift has certainly been speculated, it has not been formally observed, nor have we come to expect that our compasses point to "S" one week and to "N" the next.
Decay in the Earth's magnetic moment has been and is measured and observed. For your point to have any testable merit you would have to be able to humanly witness a radical polar shift. Until then, your position is all speculation and is based in mere theoretical supposition. But then again you are the one still trying to get us all to imagine the Earth orbiting Saturn.
You are welcomed to speculate about whether the magnetic moment of the Earth has undergone realignment, it is, however, an incontrovertable fact that your imagination (if not image of yourself as an accomplished scientific thinker) is in need of some serious re-alignment.
I on the other hand will continue with an observed and a recordable phenomenon.
Let me explain it to you then.
The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling.
...
They found that at least 16 percent of those elements had undergone rearrangements that resulted in large-scale "deletions, duplications, and chromosome reshuffling during the evolution of the human genome."
This is a very big change, something out of nothing, something which changed humans a great deal. It is a large jump totally unexplainable by evolution. These elements clearly did not act jointly and at random to create a new more advanced species. It also disproves the 2% nonsense evolutionists speak about as does the article on 'Monkeys and Men - Gene expression' which shows that the brains of men are much more powerful than those of monkeys by the simple expedient of expressing the genes affecting the brain more than on monkeys. It is hard to believe that such a simple and at the same time such a helpful change would have 'just happened' with men. Certainly such a simple change would have been helpful to almost any species yet it never occurred before. So yes, humans are special.
I've read some of gore3000's links, but I don't see anything non-Darwinian there.
If you have any questions why I consider any of them anti-Darwinian, just ask.
Which ones(fossils) and to what(modern critters)?
As to whale evolution, you don't need to know anything except read a chart. You can see that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are on a fork. Thus one cannot lead to the other(in a simple tree diagram). Also notice that the whales(Paki and Ambulo) are outside of the Artiodactyls, with the Hippos deeply "buried" in the tree. DNA evidence says they are kissing cousins. Now you must understand that this tree was produced from the bone evidence even after including the artiodactyl ankle bone. The bones are thus still at odds with the DNA evidence. The bone casters still trust their computer models and subjective character measuring over DNA evidence. Some scientists.
For the most part it means letter for letter translation. If you don't know what a word means you can translate each letter then look up the transliterated word in a Hebrew dictionary.
I'll take a look at this thread later.
Computer's and networks do not 'evolve' by themselves, they are intelligently designed. Like all things done by intelligent beings they build upon what has been previously found to work. No one reinvents the wheel, no one reinvents binary computing. People build upon these previous systems and discoveries. So much so that the width of our present roads was originally defined by the width of road necessary to carry a Roman chariot. This intelligence at work, not some mystical 'evolution' advancing our scientific and practical knowledge. In fact, when claiming that such things have evolved, the evolutionists are really showing the religious, not scientific nature of their theory.
The truth. That is why the evolutionists do not wish to discuss the science of evolution and instead keep repeating the mantra that evolution is science. If you cannot defend your theory scientifically, it is not science.
Ah... What is the truth? Don't beat around the bush, don't obfuscate. Lay your cards on the table. How do you explain the fossil record (attacking the evolutionist view of the fossil record does not constitute an explanation)? How do you explain the DNA evidence (once more, attacking evolution is not an option here)? Do you have anything other than a plaintive wailing that evolution just cannot be true because you can't possibly ever come to accept it?
I brought up the star of Bethlehem because I thought it might interest you in strict scientific terms. I say this because even if someone thinks the three wise men are a myth, something occurred in the heavens coinciding with the birth of Christ and His death.
Anyway, I hope you due a ‘search’ on this as well.
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.