It could be true, teach the controversy placemarker.
Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.
what amuses me, if "amuses" is the correct word, is the willingness some exhibit to deem any unsupported high-pressure live-steam fantasy a "credible scientific theory" while summarily rejecting a well-supported and useful real theory like the ToE.
it is a source of endless puzzlement.
Gosh, can we rule out magic pixies placing them there? Or spiritual faries pulling them out of your bum? Or The Invisible, Pink Unicorn creating them in an orderly fashion in sync with the Universe aging?
Your "style" of logic is as impressive as a slug running a marathon.
Gosh, can we rule out magic pixies placing them there? Or spiritual faries pulling them out of your bum? Or The Invisible, Pink Unicorn creating them in an orderly fashion in sync with the Universe aging?
Your "style" of logic is as impressive as a slug running a marathon.
Ooooh, a double post = double points!
It could be true, teach the controversy placemarker.
OK, we find fossils of horse-like animals in grassland environments. But I should be open to the notion that they're not of the Earth at all. IMO, this is simply silly.
I'll stick with Occam until someone produces evidence of some sort of ET activity or of "engineering".
Neither one is observed in the modern world (until maybe 20 years ago), there are no fossil gene splicers or test tubes or whatever, and as I said, some of the fossil species merge imperceptibly into each other.
In fact, the modern species aren't all that well separated.
The Flood water came from Uranus. Teach the controversy!
They didn't - but what with all that inbreeding ..
Dave,
I hadn't seen this before now. Reading it now, seeing your words "if evolutionists HAD THEIR WAY", it really does look to me that you did indeed say that evolutionists advocate ("HAD THEIR WAY") child abuse.
as to exaggerated primary and secondary sex-linked morphological traits: reread what I stated - "all are THOUGHT to have evolved..." is a far cry from a statement of certainty.
ach, enough - I am beginning to suspect I mediated where mediation was undeserved.
bee-ee-ay-yoo-tiful!
While I tend to agree that the Bible simplifies, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's wrong. Considering the massive amount of information that is covered in the first chapter of Genesis in 31 verses, some simplification is necessary. Since the main message of the Bible isn't about how God created the world and everything in it, I think it does a pretty good job.
One example that I can think of offhand, is the description of the early Earth. Knowing what I've read about the formation of the solar system and planets and all, I consider "And the earth was formless and void..." a pretty succinct description. It gives enough information that anyone can understand it, and yet I feel it's pretty accurate. I can't think of any other way of describing it using fewer words.
This is one of the reasons that I feel that science and the creation account in the Bible are not mutually exclusive. I feel that there are other areas where the current scientific theories are not in conflict with the creation account. While it could be considered a stretch by some to say that science supports the Biblical creation account, I don't see the contradictions that many do, from either side.
it was, and remains so, but to tell the truth y'all make it very hard sometimes to remain equable.
thought exercise:
you go back in time a mere 2300 years, to... Athens.
you attempt to explain any modern science to the philosophers there... in Attic Greek.
you will immediately run into the problem that they simply don't have the specific words and concepts embedded and extant in their language to comprehend any but the vaguest outline of what is being described - and you will not be able to make up new words that they'd understand.
Now, add in your temporary acquisition of the powers of the Almighty.
You still have the same problem!
Even if you gave them detailed visions and inspired understanding... how would *they* communicate that to their disciples???
so for this thought exercise, even more so for trying to explain *everything* to a bunch of neolithic goat herders.
any explanation given would be pared down to the point of complete dissimilarity to fact - yet it can still remain absolutely true (at least about the important stuff it is actually trying to convey).
parables, allegory, fables - can all be 100% true while having not one bit of factual accuracy.
to avoid insulting anyone's creed, let's jump to a harmless substitute: Aesop.
I surely hope that not one adult alive today is under the impression that there has ever *actually* been a fox capable of human speech and hungry for grapes... yet, otoh, the truth of that story and its "I bet they're sour anyway" punchline is so evident and applicable to human behavior.
I hope I have expressed myself well in this post.
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.