Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
That is the equation for Newton's second law of motion (as applied to a gravitational force). The LAW of gravity is F=G*(mM/r^2), where F is the force, G is the universal gravitational constant, m and M are the masses of two bodies and r is the separation distance. Neither of these is a THEORY of gravity. To have a theory of gravity you must explain WHY the gravitational force exists and why it has the value it has.
Space-time had no beginning. The origin of the energy is material, because the energy precides this creation of the universe myth. This energy indicatest that something precided this event therefore it is not a creation of the universe, as the universe was already here.
Like Columbus discovered America, which was already here and had people living in the woods..
Your arguments tend to be at the level of a third grader, so no adult response is required.
No, just because I am affiliated with creationists, I am automatically illogical.
Not at all. You are simply illogical, creationist or not.
Well golly, I've argued every point you've said, and EVERYTHING YOU HAVE STATED REVOLVES AROUD THE STATEMENT THAT I CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING. Your every argument (if they are fit to be called that,) is a fallacy.
Wrong again. I said you had not proved anything and I said it because you haven't. There is no semantic game here of "it's impossible to prove anything" except in your own mind. I guess you really like that strawman since you bring it up at every opportunity.
When I think of you, I picture an atheist version of the Iraqi information minister saying: "LIES!!! LIES!!! THERE IS NO GOD!!!"
You sure are obsessed with putting me in that atheist/Nazi/Communist/Satanist box - where in this thread did I say no gods exist?
You need to stop reacting like a child and think logically about what you are trying to say. If you don't understand something, ask like an adult - or you will doomed to be mistaken for a fundamentalist-liberal-girlyman for the rest of your life.
Yes, "theory" versus "law" with respect to mathematics was the point.
What are the Laws of Science?
The answer to the question in the title thread is unresoundingly YES, if a literalist silly Bible interpretation is involved.
My view is that Creation comports well with Genesis 1, but you have to interpret the Hebrew correctly.
Well, it depends if you insist on a literal view of the Noah tale.
Lighten up a little. He is only a kid.
"Nobody should care what I believe, I've just been starting facts, in a simple way. The scientific Godless world is relatively easy to understand and predict. Evolution without divinity (a driving force), seems more of a belief than established fact."
Anyone see any facts in that statement? LOL
Jehu:"Allele's are just the latest pseudo buzz words by evolutionists. "
stremba"So all humans have the same blood type? Better study genetics before you make posts like that."
OK, I think we can safely discard anything Jehu has to say about biological science and the TOE. "Pseudo buzz words", the guy is a trip. LMAO
No, synchronic dating confirms the chronology of dino bones in the strata.
You might want to discard the 666 after your screen name, to get the wackos to calm down. LOL
TOE suggests life from the immaterial.
shubi: The immaterial? What in the name of all that's holy does that mean?
Is TOE based strictly upon naturalistic processes or not?
shubi: TOE does not need intervention by anyone or any deity to work. What does naturalistic processes mean?
If it is, describe to me in any way possible how TOE accounts for symbiotic life? I'll even give you the species (Yucca Moth/Yucca Plant of the American southwest)
shubi: I am not to familiar with the Yucca/moth. However, symbiotic relationships are totally explainable by natural selection.
I'll be watching to see if you smuggle in any concept of Teleology.
shubi: OK, but design can be done by the genetic process without help from any other being or force.
You want to propose all species descended (ultimately) from single celled animals (That is part of TOE), then give me some equations that describe this "scientific" process! LMAO
shubi: Equations? Genetics explains how single cell life could eventually change into all the life you see on Earth and the fossil record, with all its transitional forms.
And you call yourself a Christian?
How far back and how uniformly?
I finally figured that out.
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.