Posted on 05/05/2009 9:44:52 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
“Science does not, can not, deal with the supernatural realm. Science does not address theology. Science only makes assumptions based on observation. Period.”
There are no assumptions here or anywhere in your brand of science... only declarations based on incomplete data.
“Earlier I offer direct, unambiguous statements, and you just shined them on.”
I really don’t think I shined them on. Once you know a language, I don’t think it is that difficult to understand what a writer means. Unless you don’t like what they are saying!
With your attitude, no one would be able to understand the works of Plato or Aristotle or Hammurabi’s Code or The Iliad. It would all just be so indecipherable.
Writers write with the notion of being understood, not playing cat and mouse games. The author of the Bible as well as the authors of other ancient works wrote lucidly and clearly and are easily understood.
Perhaps though, not easily ACCEPTED. I think that is where your disagreement lies.
“Science only makes assumptions based on observation. Period.”
Has Science observed the millions of positive mutations that would be necessary to make a working eyeball? Has it observed that according to its most indulgent theories we’d still be billions of years short for the necessary time to make these theoretical mutations?
Has Science observed that all observable mutations involve a decrease in genetic information, not an increase?
I hope Science has.
I am indeed entering with a massive presupposition - that the God of the Bible has told us precisely how He created the universe in 6 days.
But you need to realize that you are entering with a massive presupposition of your own - that there are no miracles, and the Genesis account is false.
“Science follows evidence. “
There is no actual evidence for evolution. For instance:
The fossil record shows no transitory life forms.
There is no example of species becoming other species.
We can’t even make it happen when we try, let alone see it happening randomly.
You CAN take fossil records and posit billions of years of evolutionary theory out of it. Or, you can take them and see catastrophic flood layers.
It all depends on your presupposition.
And I’m not paranoid. I believed in evolution for my first 21 years. It doesn’t freak me out. I just happen to think it is wrong.
And mere observation proves me right. All that is needed is a post or two and my theory proves out each and every time.
Just saw you’re a homeschooler... I’ve got three boys myself which we choose to indoctrinate through the aid of homeschooling!
Glad to know there’s one more out there in the same fight.
God bless.
GG
“Only the hardest of the hardcore Young Earth Creationists who have never, ever taken a basic biology course in their lives and were raised in the church, homeschooled, and barred from television, newspapers and magazines their entire lives can possible believe there “is no actual evidence for evolution.””
OK, I was raised in public school, with an evolutionist, atheist parent and have been barred from nothing. And there are scientists all over the world, plenty with Phds in Biology as well as all the scientific fields, who are six day creationists. So your statements are really off the charts, there. You are talking as though all degreed scientists oppose six day creation. To which I say: balderdash! Obvious balderdash.
“Please define what your idea of a “transitory life form” is.”
A life form in between one species and another. Say, a half man half ape. Or a partial bird partial dinosaur. There is no fossil record or present day example of any transitory life form. There should be millions were evolutionary theory correct. Take the most obvious: man. Did we spring from gorilla to human without any steps in between? Impossible. There would absolutely be such beings among us, and physical evidence as well. Their absence speaks volumes.
“The entire drug industry, the entire farming industry and its attendant industries (ie, pesticide and seed companies), the entire medical industry, the entire medical, pharmaceutical and medical research industries (to name a few) are based upon basic evolutionary principles.”
I disagree. My son is a BS in Physics, works medical research, nanotechnology, believes in 6 day creation, and does not base any of his experiments/programs on evolutionary biology. There has been no need of it, nor call for it.
No one who believes in six day creation disbelieves that mutations can occur within species. We all know viruses mutate. That doesn’t mean they become frogs. They remain viruses. I can breed cats for all sorts of characteristics. But they remain cats, and they always will.
In re: the cichlids, that was new to me, not being a cutting edge scientist or what have you - but found this response easily:
“These fish specialized to different microhabitats,” explained the University of Maryland’s Karen Carleton, one of the study team members. “The visual system then specialized to the light environment at these depths and the mating colors shifted to match. Once this happened, these two groups no longer interbred and so became new species.”
“In other words, one cichlid species that likely could see both types of light and included all of the possible colors has “evolved” (speciated) into separate species whose senses are limited and who only exhibit certain colors.
So as usual, rather than a case of information-adding evolution (which is required for the molecules-to-man narrative of Darwinism), this is just another observation of natural selection weeding out information as speciation occurs, resulting in organisms that are custom-tailored to their environment but lack the genetic diversity their ancestors had.”
Once again, it’s always a SUBTRACTION of genetic info, not any addition, which is what evolutionary theory is always speculating but never proving. Because that doesn’t happen. You claim to be motivated by factual evidence, but the most critical piece of evolutionary evidence - a missing link, an example of addition of genetic information - is simply nonexistent. Rather than admit that, you seem to be saying, as far as I understand, that amphibians are the missing link between fish and mammals? Not even evolution textbooks teach that.
Look, God is good, He told us how He started things, and there is a world of discovery still to be done as we examine what appears to be an infinite universe. Jesus referred to the creation account as literally true. He knew what He was talking about. He didn’t need a Darwinian Phd to come along and correct His thinking.
Your ignorance is astounding. “Gorilla to man?” You’re unaware of the many dinosaur/bird fossils? You still think fossilization is an easy process? You actually believe the creationist websites when they tell you there are PdD’s in biology who are 6-day creationists? Come now. (Though I note you diddn’t say “young earthers” so if you did that on purpose, a tip of my cap to you.)
I give you a speciation event (the cichlids) you give me a creationist argument about “losing genetic information” for some reason. That’s called Moving the goalposts and creationists are quite excellent at it. Sorry, marie, this is usually how new species arise. A viable population becomes geographically separated, then become genetically distinct. Then thousands and millions of years go by as the populations follow their own evolutionary pathway in their own niche. Sorry it’s not more exciting with half goat half fish men changing and “adding genetic information” before your eyes.
for that type of magic, you’ll need to read your bible.
And how many times are you going to tell us that your son has a PhD in Physics? As if that has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolutionary theory. Your repetition of your son’s credentials is perhaps the strangest “argument from authority” I’ve come across here.
“Your ignorance is astounding.”
“for that type of magic, you’ll need to read your bible.”
Exactly the reason I choose not to engage you Evo-morons in debate anymore.
Stinking arrogant. You talk to all women in your life like this?
“And how many times are you going to tell us that your son has a PhD in Physics?”
It’s just that you alleged that all degreed scientists believe in evolutionary theory. Since I know him so personally, I referenced him. I didn’t realize I had repeated myself.
My neighbor has a BS in Chemistry from Berkeley; he’s six day, too.
Yes, I do believe that the scientists who write for the creationist blogs, write creation science textbooks and are at the forefront of creation science teaching do actually hold the degrees they claim to hold. If they didn’t it would become quickly known. There are plenty of people seeking to undercut them in any way possible.
And no, I’m not aware of any dinosaur to bird fossils.
I know fossilization is a rare process. I do think, though, that if evolution is commonplace and pervasive, we’d have as many transitory life forms fossilized as all the trilobytes and such.
I have no shame about being a “young earther,” did not omit it on purpose, I believe the earth is about 6-8,000 years old. I believe it was created with age, that is to say, granite already formed, diamonds in the diamond fields, etc.
You may not like the cichlid argument I made, but I don’t like the cichlid argument you made, either. My purpose in responding to your cichlid argument is to point out that there are different conclusions that can be drawn from the same data.
Which is where creationists and evolutionists part. We see the same data, but interpret it differently, according our presuppositions. And the creationists are not the only ones with presuppositions. We are just the only ones honest about it.
Excellent reply.
So if someone takes all the Bible literally, they’re mocked and ridiculed for not recognizing different styles of writing in the Bible.
And if someone recognizes different writing styles in the Bible and explains it in a coherent fashion, they’re accused of manipulating God’s Word to justify all manner of mischief.
So the believer is damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
This is another fine example of how Christians/creationists can never do anything right in the eyes of an evo.
Not a surprise, is it?
The physics of a road runner cartoon.
Cheers!
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.