Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[oc-flyfish]

No, I did follow what they were saying up to a point, but my background is not molecular biology. Check out the information for yourself.

[r9etb]

I believe that the universe came into existence in the form of monkeys flying out of The Great Ass.... Who can say I'm wrong?

I don't know. But if you have any monkeys left over I'd like to buy one for my kids.

[narby]

According to the Bible, God made man out of the dust of the earth.

And how many steps were there in between dust and Man?

Go back and read Genesis. Count the words used to describe what absolutly had to be an incredibly complex thing.

How God created everything.

There simply must be more to the story than those few hundred words. Like the book of Revelation, Genesis cannot be read litterally. The humans who recorded the words of the Bible were not there at creation, and they have not yet seen Revelation.

And as I've pointed out, obviously humans do not agree on the meaning of Gods will. So how could they have perfectly written either Genesis or Revelation?

[dubyagee]

If my own experience is any guide, you'll know it by how hard you have to work to avoid answering the door.

Hehehhehhe, that is a job, indeed, isn't it?

[Dimensio]

Does your consciousness entertain the thought that there is more to creation than meets the eye?

I would say yes, but you're using the loaded term 'creation' which assumes that the universe is created, which has not been universally accepted.

[Prince Caspian]

You either believe in creation, or just a big coincidence. Personally, I find the latter to be quite ridiculous.

As far as the ridiculousness of a "big coincidence" is concerned, it would depend on how many "trials" there were. If the cosmos was repeatedly attempting to jump-start a new universe with trillions and quadrillions of failures, eventually it will get lucky, assuming the probablility of the chain of events resulting in what we see around us is not zero.

BTW, I'm a creationist.

[tang-soo]

I just found somethinng very interesting. I had seen the following quote before and went to Google to find it so I could post it here. PLease read the comment at the end of this post ...

This is from the final chapter of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' Notice even Darwin referred to the Creator with a capital 'C'....

There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved.

Now for the interesting part. One of the links reported by Google can be found here under the heading 'knowledge matters' is found the following ...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Notice the difference? The phrase 'by the Creator' has been removed! Upon further investigation I have found that the version with 'Creator' as the source was added by Darwin during subsequent editions. I think the choice of the version used to quote could indicate which side one happens to lie. I would think the honest person would choose the latest edition or at least footnote the other version.

[jim35]

Leeches stimulate blood flow to impaired tissues. Gross, but it works.

[medved]

Did he mean yesterday, or 5 billion years ago?

A few thousand years ago, more or less. Nobody is jumping up and down demanding that any of the variants of a Saturn thesis be taught as a fact in public schools at public expense, and a person could believe that the Earth was orbitting Saturn NOW and still make sense compared to evolutionists. Evolution stands everything we know about mathematics and probability theory on their heads.

[gcruse]

 Creationism doesn't necessarily rely on the Christian belief in God,

Hey, I was born at night, but it wasn't  LAST night.
That crap won't fly.

[Tribune7]

LOL

[moneyrunner]

”DNA. Check it out.”

Did. Not persuasive.

If your DNA is found on a murder victim, we can presume with a high degree of assurance that you had contact with the victim.

If your DNA is similar to both simians and earthworms, but not similar to chickens, what can we conclude?

[narby]

By neither, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Like I said, by grace....

My point is that humans cannot ever perfectly interpret the will of God, and so many disagree with your statement. Humans recorded Genesis. They were flawed humans. Genesis has only two chapters on creation. There's just a bit more to the story to be discovered, and science is working on its discovery.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[dubyagee]

There simply must be more to the story than those few hundred words. Like the book of Revelation, Genesis cannot be read litterally. The humans who recorded the words of the Bible were not there at creation, and they have not yet seen Revelation.

I agree with you there, even though I do believe Revelation can be interpreted ("Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near." Rev 1:3). But I do believe we got the abreviated version of creation.

[jejones]

I wonder what other area of science one would have to go back over 400 years to find a respected proponent of one's point of view? History is full of scientists who have fallen for various pieces of crackpottery. Linus Pauling's work in chemistry won him a Nobel Prize, but late in life he took to pushing vitamin C as a cure for just about everything. Brian Josephson, another Nobel laureate for work on superconductors, believes in the metal benders and psychics. A notion is not made scientific by having scientists who believe in it.

[Tribune7]

The murders of Anne Nicole Smith and Ron Goldman are not reproducible. Therefore, by your reasoning, the bafflegab spun by Cochran & Co. is just as credible as the belief that O. J. Simpson is a murderer.

We can objectively show that O.J. Simpson did not murder Anne Nicole Smith.

[narby]

If he 'created' science, it stands to reason he is much further advanced than we are. 8 * )

He's so far advanced, He created Evolution.